able-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are generally distinct with clear prefixes for different domains (als, live, midi, etc.). However, there is some overlap between assist_finishing and als_find_unfinished, and between live_vocal_to_complement_midi and midi_vocal_to_complement, which could cause confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
Naming follows a consistent pattern with prefixes and verb_noun structure overall. Minor inconsistencies like 'assist_finishing' vs 'assist_harmonic_overview' (gerund vs noun) and the use of 'to' in tool names are acceptable but not uniform.
Tool Count3/5
With 40 tools, this server is on the heavy side. While the coverage is broad across multiple subdomains, it could benefit from splitting into smaller servers or reducing redundancy. The count is borderline high.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers a wide range of Ableton Live interactions: file analysis, live control, MIDI processing, and project management. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of effect/automation tools or session view management, but core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.3/5 across 40 of 40 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 4, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose that a confirmation parameter exists (default true), nor discuss side effects, irreversibility, or authorization. For a destructive action, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too terse. While every word earns its place, it sacrifices necessary detail. Structure is adequate but not front-loaded with key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain return values or usage context. With 3 parameters, 2 required, and no enums, the description should provide more detail to guide correct invocation. It is incomplete for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about the three parameters (confirm, scene_index, track_index). The agent gets no help understanding how to specify the clip location or the role of confirm.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (clip from a session slot), but could be more specific about what a session slot entails. The purpose is clear and not a tautology, though it doesn't distinguish from siblings like live_delete_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as live_delete_track or live_create_clip. The description lacks context for when deletion is appropriate or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'trigger redo'—no mention of side effects, state changes, or safety. The agent cannot infer what 'redo' entails beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely brief, the description is under-specified. It lacks structure and essential details, making it more of a placeholder than a concise, effective description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's behavior, input parameter meaning, or return value. It is insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'confirm' parameter or its role. The agent has no guidance on how to use the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Trigger Live's redo') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like live_undo, which is a minimal but acceptable lack.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as live_undo. There are no usage constraints or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only analysis but does not confirm whether it modifies anything, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description lacks depth about side effects and operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by explaining the parameter and output.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no annotations, and an unspecified output schema, the description should explain what the output looks like and clarify the meaning of 'set' (likely an Ableton Live project). It falls short by omitting expected return format and input context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter `path` with no description, and the description does not explain what `path` refers to (e.g., path to a project file). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain about the required input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it aggregates finishing suggestions for a set and lists specific issue types (missing instruments, empty clips, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like `als_find_unfinished` by focusing on common finishing problems rather than broader unfinished detection. However, the verb 'aggregate' is somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does without guiding the agent on when to prefer it over similar tools like `als_find_unfinished`.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only gives vague examples of what 'unfinished' means. It does not disclose whether the tool modifies anything or its performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (1 param, output schema exists), but the lack of parameter documentation and limited behavioral info make it incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has one parameter path with 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify what path refers to (e.g., file path, directory). No additional meaning beyond the schema field name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it finds unfinished elements in a set, with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like als_summary or als_list_tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus others. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose if renaming has side effects, requires confirmation (though a confirm parameter exists), or is reversible. Minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is concise but not informative enough for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description is incomplete. No mention of return values (despite having an output schema) or error conditions. Fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond raw parameter names. It does not explain 'index' (0-based? 1-based?), 'name' constraints, or the role of 'confirm'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Rename') and resource ('track'), and specifies the method ('by index'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like live_create_track or live_delete_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., renaming via live_list_tracks + another operation). No context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the tool creates an empty clip, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing clips), required state (track selected?), or behavior when called multiple times.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but lacks structure (e.g., bullet points, sections). It is appropriately short for a simple action but could be more organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (which reduces need for return value explanation), the description fails to contextualize the parameters, confirm behavior, or error conditions. With 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is underprovided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. For example, 'confirm' and 'name' are left undefined, requiring the agent to infer meaning from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'empty MIDI clip', and the location 'arrangement timeline of a MIDI track'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'live_create_clip' (which may create in session view) and 'live_arrangement_set_clip_notes' (which modifies existing clips).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, selected track), differences from similar tools like 'live_create_clip', or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behaviors like what happens if playback is already playing or if no track is loaded. It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, front-loading the core action. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description still lacks parameter info and usage context, making it incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'confirm' (boolean, default true) is not mentioned in the description, and the schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the agent without any guidance on its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Continue playback from the current position' uses a specific verb ('continue') and resource ('playback'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'live_play' which likely starts from the beginning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'live_play' or 'live_stop', nor does it mention prerequisites such as having a paused playback state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the algorithm and return values but lacks details on performance, limitations (e.g., empty clips, non-tonal music), or how to interpret confidence. This is insufficient for an AI agent to predict side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices important details, making it slightly too terse. It efficiently conveys the core purpose but omits necessary usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify 'track_index' or 'clip_index' within an .als file, nor does it mention that the tool may require prior context from sibling tools like 'als_list_tracks'. The output schema is present but the description only hints at return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 required parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description does not explain what 'path', 'clip_index', or 'track_index' mean, whether indices are zero-based, or how to obtain them. Schema coverage is low and description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Estimate', the resource 'key of a MIDI clip in an .als file', and specifies the algorithm used. It is distinct from siblings like 'midi_guess_chords' which deals with chords, not key estimation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes related tools like 'als_list_clips' and 'midi_guess_chords', but the description does not clarify if prerequisites or alternative uses exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a new scene' and the index default. It does not mention any side effects, whether it is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens on duplicate creation. The confirm parameter's role is also left unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and to the point. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as explaining the confirm parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks coverage of the confirm parameter and any behavioral context. For a tool with two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the index parameter's default but completely omits the confirm parameter (boolean, default true). Only half of the parameters are documented in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new scene' clearly states the verb and resource. The sibling tools include create_clip and create_track, so there is no ambiguity about what is being created. The index default detail adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only provides a usage hint for the index parameter (defaults to -1 for append). There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the import and clip creation, and the .ablx extension dependency. However, it fails to disclose what happens on failure, whether the operation is destructive, or any required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by placement logic. It is concise with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly improved by adding a brief note about the output or the optional parameters without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It covers core functionality but omits many parameter semantics, output details, and error handling. A more complete description would address these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain all parameters. It only clarifies scene_index and start_time implicitly, but does not describe confirm, duration, is_warped, or file_path (other than requiring .ablx). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool imports an audio file into a Live project and creates an audio clip. It specifies placement behavior based on scene_index, which helps differentiate from other clip creation tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from all sibling tools, but the verb+resource combination is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides conditional guidance on placement (session vs arrangement), which is useful. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites like track existence. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided; the description carries the burden. It lists the steps (render, extract, generate, create clip, write notes) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether existing clips are overwritten, or permission requirements. The high-level overview is present but lacks behavioral nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that captures the entire workflow. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, though it could be structured as a list for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (reducing need to describe return values), the tool has 11 parameters and 4 required ones. The description does not explain how to use the required parameters (source_audio_track_index, start_time, etc.) or the optional ones, making it incomplete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (e.g., seed, density, register). With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning to parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs an end-to-end live flow: rendering audio, extracting vocal guide, generating complementary melody, creating a MIDI clip, and writing notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like midi_generate_complement which likely only do part of the pipeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., midi_vocal_to_complement). No prerequisites or context provided, which is a gap given the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the output is complementary and mentions the input format. No behavioral traits like destructive effects, error handling, or side effects are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, but it lacks structure such as parameter lists or behavioral notes. It is not verbose but misses crucial details, making it borderline adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output, parameter effects, or usage contexts. The output schema exists but the description should still provide sufficient context for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only mentions the guide_notes parameter format. Parameters like seed, density, register, similarity, and call_response are unexplained, adding no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a complementary MIDI melody (not a duplicate) from guide notes. It includes the specific verb-resource pair and input format, differentiating it from potential duplicates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage with guide notes in beat-space but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like midi_vocal_to_complement or other generation tools. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it modifies the clip, or any side effects. The phrase 'per-clip note stats' implies a read, but this is not explicit, leaving the agent uncertain about safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one line) and front-loaded with the key purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (declared but not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about parameter relationships and error handling (e.g., what if clip doesn't exist). It is minimally adequate for a simple stats tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the three parameters (path, track_index, clip_index). It does not explain how these identify the clip or their expected formats, forcing the agent to rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns per-clip note statistics (count, range, density, pitch-class histogram). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like midi_estimate_key or midi_guess_chords, which focus on different analyses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., midi_estimate_key for key estimation, als_extract_midi for raw data). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies read-only, but no details on sorting, error handling, or whether backups are from a specific source. Minimal insight into tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient communication of the tool's core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits necessary context about what constitutes a 'timestamped backup', how backup_dir modifies behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. Leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not define the 'path' or 'backup_dir' parameters. The agent is left guessing what these fields mean, despite the tool having only two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'timestamped backups for an .als file', distinguishing it from siblings like project_backup which creates backups and other als_* tools that extract or list different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as project_backup or als_list_clips. The description does not provide any context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that rendering uses pre-effects audio and saves to a temp directory, but omits details on side effects (e.g., if file already exists), permissions needed, or whether the operation is destructive. Some transparency but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the key action. However, it could be more structured to include parameter hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no explanations in the description, the tool is poorly specified. An output schema exists but doesn't compensate for missing parameter semantics. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (track_index, start_time, end_time, confirm). The schema only provides bare titles, so the agent has no additional meaning to correctly set parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders pre-effects audio of an arrangement track to a WAV file and returns the path. The verb 'render' and resource 'track' are specific, and the output format is explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform audio rendering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or what conditions must be met (e.g., track existence, audio content).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'reverts' implying a destructive action, but does not disclose whether the operation is reliably successful, what happens when there is no change to undo, or any confirmation behavior related to the 'confirm' parameter. The description lacks necessary detail for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two short, direct sentences with no extraneous information. Every word adds value: 'Trigger Live's undo' establishes the action, and 'Reverts the last LOM-visible change' clarifies scope. It is perfectly concise for the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits common behavioral aspects such as whether undo operates on the current edit or across sessions, and it does not mention that undo may fail if no changes are available. The description is adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('confirm') with no description, and the tool description does not explain its meaning or effect. The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility to clarify the parameter. Without any explanation, an agent cannot understand how the 'confirm' parameter influences behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers Live's undo and reverts the last LOM-visible change. The verb 'trigger' and noun 'undo' are specific, and the wording distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'live_redo' and 'live_continue'. The scope is well-defined by 'last LOM-visible change'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'live_redo'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an action to undo) or conditions under which undo might not work. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description suggests a read-only operation (extracting data) but does not explicitly state side effects or permissions. Since annotations are absent, the description partially covers transparency, but lacks detail on whether the tool modifies any state or requires specific access.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and output format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) and three required parameters. The description covers the output format and the two clip-identifying parameters, but the missing explanation of 'path' leaves a gap. For a simple extraction tool, the description is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema shows three parameters (path, track_index, clip_index) with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'by track index and clip index' but does not explain 'path', leaving the user to infer its meaning. The description adds value for two parameters but entirely misses the third.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Extract MIDI notes) and the target (one clip by track and clip index), and specifies the output format (pitch/start/duration/velocity tuples). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'live_arrangement_set_clip_notes' by focusing on extraction, but does not explicitly differentiate from other MIDI analysis tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance, only implying that track and clip indices are needed. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'midi_note_stats' or 'als_list_clips'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions default length but omits key behaviors like whether an existing clip is overwritten, the role of the confirm parameter, or that it operates on the session grid. Minimal disclosure beyond the schema defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, each adding value. The first defines the core purpose, the second provides a useful default. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, an output schema, and siblings that target different views, the description is too sparse. It fails to specify that the tool creates in the session slot (vs arrangement), does not explain confirmation behavior, and does not clarify the indexing for track and scene. The output schema exists but the description provides no completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only mentions length_beats defaults. It does not explain track_index, scene_index, name, or confirm parameters. The agent must infer their roles from the tool name and context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('empty MIDI clip in the given session slot'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like live_arrangement_create_midi_clip (arrangement view) and live_delete_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as live_arrangement_create_midi_clip for arrangement view or live_set_clip_notes for populating the clip. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical behavior that existing notes are removed before replacement, which is good. However, it omits other traits like whether the operation is destructive, authorization needs, or side effects (e.g., clip state changes).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words. The note format is given efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown) and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic operation and the notes format, but lacks context about the 'confirm' parameter's role (seemingly a safety toggle), and how indices are used. Adequate for a simple replace action but could be more thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only the 'notes' parameter is explained with its structure. The schema has 0% description coverage for the other three parameters ('confirm', 'scene_index', 'track_index'), and the description does not compensate by explaining their purpose or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Replace') and resource ('notes in a MIDI clip'), and briefly describes the note format. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'live_arrangement_set_clip_notes', though the context implies it's for session clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'live_arrangement_set_clip_notes' or similar MIDI editing tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., clip existence) or conditions for successful use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a destructive action ('Replace notes') but lacks details on side effects (e.g., clip length adjustment, undo capabilities, required permissions). Since no annotations exist, the description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose and the key parameter format. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential context for parameters like track_index and arrangement_index. It does not explain the confirm parameter or the overall workflow. The tool requires more complete documentation to be fully usable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the 'notes' parameter format (list of dicts with pitch, start, duration, velocity, mute). However, it does not clarify the other three parameters (track_index, arrangement_index, confirm), leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Replace notes') and the specific resource ('arrangement MIDI clip'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'live_set_clip_notes' which likely targets session clips. It is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'live_set_clip_notes' for session clips. There are no prerequisites or context for appropriate usage, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explain the 'confirm' parameter's effect, whether a dialog appears, or any consequences of stopping transport (e.g., potential data loss).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with two sentences, no fluff. While efficient, it could be slightly restructured for clarity (e.g., placing the default info in a separate line).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, low parameter count, and existing output schema, the description lacks sufficient context about parameter behavior and return values, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only notes the default value of 'confirm' without explaining its semantics, adding marginal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Stop' and the resource 'Live's transport', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. Among sibling tools like 'live_play' and 'live_continue', it is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a default behavior but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the two-step process but does not describe side effects, return value format, required permissions, or any limits. The word 'convenience' implies it's a combined operation, but deeper behavioral details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with 'convenience one-shot' and clearly states actions. However, it could benefit from a brief additional sentence on key parameters or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, composite operation, many siblings), the description is too brief. It does not clarify output, parameter roles, or when to use this composite versus separate steps. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It only implies file_path and tempo_bpm from the description. The other five parameters (seed, density, register, similarity, call_response) are not explained or even hinted at, leaving their semantics unknown.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that this tool extracts a vocal guide from a WAV file and generates a complementary MIDI melody in beat-space. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform these steps separately (midi_extract_vocal_guide, midi_generate_complement).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'convenience one-shot' hints at using this tool when both steps are desired together, but it does not provide explicit criteria for choosing this over calling individual steps. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses destructive nature and recovery option, but does not describe side effects, permissions, or the meaning of the confirm parameter. Behavioral transparency is minimal beyond the obvious mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the core action and providing recovery guidance. No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits explanation of the confirm parameter, index semantics, and does not contextualize the tool among siblings for selection. The output schema exists but the description still lacks key context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. Only 'index' is mentioned in description, but no details on valid values (e.g., 0-based?) or the confirm parameter. The description adds little beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Delete a track by index' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like live_delete_clip and live_undo by specifying track deletion and recovery via undo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions using live_undo for recovery, implying irreversibility, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like muting or other delete tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action and parameter default. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden but fails to mention effects (e.g., whether playback starts from current position, any side effects).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the basic purpose and default. However, it lacks details on return values or any behavioral context that would help an agent decide between sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'confirm' parameter by stating its default value, which implies a confirmation dialog. With 0% schema description coverage, this helps but does not fully explain the parameter's role or effect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Start Live's transport.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_stop or live_continue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites. The only additional info is about the default parameter value, which does not address usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'list all tracks' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, error conditions (e.g., file not found), or performance implications. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'List' and efficiently packs key information about resource and returned fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral transparency and usage guidance. It sufficiently covers the basic purpose but not the deeper context needed for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path'. The description does not explain the parameter meaning, format, or constraints beyond implying it refers to an .als file. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type 'string'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'list', the resource '.als file', and the specific fields returned (kind, name, mute/solo state, device count). This distinguishes it from similar siblings like 'live_list_tracks' which operates on a different resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when track metadata from an .als file is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'live_list_tracks' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the default value for 'confirm' (true) and the BPM range, but does not explain what the 'confirm' parameter does, what happens if BPM is out of range, or any side effects like whether the change is immediate or requires confirmation. Without annotations, additional behavioral details are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key parameter details. However, it sacrifices clarity on 'confirm' for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose and a default value but omits behavioral details (e.g., what confirm does, error handling). It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic meaning: 'bpm' is the tempo value with a range, and 'confirm' has a default. However, it does not clarify the role of 'confirm' (e.g., whether it's a safety flag or triggers a dialog). This is minimally helpful but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('Live's tempo'), and includes the BPM range (20..999). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_get_tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. While it's obvious for setting tempo, there is no mention of related tools (e.g., live_get_tempo) or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions the sliding window and default window size but lacks details on side effects (e.g., read-only), limitations (e.g., polyphonic handling), or prerequisites. Minimal disclosure of behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences cover purpose, method, default, and output format without redundancy. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema exists, the high-level return format is described. However, with no parameter descriptions and missing usage context, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description only adds context for window_beats (default value). Required parameters path, track_index, clip_index are not described, leaving their meaning unclear. The description adds little beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool guesses chords across a MIDI clip using a sliding window, distinguishing it from siblings like midi_estimate_key and midi_note_stats. The verb 'guess' and resource 'chords on a MIDI clip' are specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. The description implies chord detection but does not contrast with alternatives. However, the tool name and sibling list provide implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions being dependency-free and output format, but omits important aspects like error handling, side effects (e.g., file creation or modification), or behavior with non-monophonic input. This is insufficient for a processing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core action and key differentiator (dependency-free) followed by output and requirement. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (not shown), the description sufficiently covers primary purpose, requirements, and output format. However, it could improve by noting input constraints (e.g., monophonic expected) or range behavior, but overall it provides adequate context for a tool with these properties.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds context about the requirement for tempo_bpm and output format. It does not explain the meanings or roles of other parameters (e.g., hop_ms, frame_ms, min_note, max_note, min_note_sec), leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'extract', the resource 'monophonic guide melody from a vocal WAV file', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'midi_vocal_to_complement' by highlighting the dependency-free pitch tracker and output in seconds and beats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates a prerequisite (tempo_bpm is required) and implies usage when a tempo-aligned guide melody is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'midi_vocal_to_complement' or 'live_vocal_to_complement_midi'. No when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses kind, index default, and that it returns track info, but omits behavior of 'confirm' parameter, potential side effects (e.g., affecting arrangement), or any prerequisites. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences effectively communicate the core purpose and key parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could include a brief note about 'confirm' without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given moderate complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main functionality but misses the 'confirm' parameter. With no annotations, it is adequate but not fully complete for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds meaning for 'kind' (allowed values) and 'index' (default to end), but does not mention the 'confirm' parameter at all. Therefore, it partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new track' with specific verb and resource, and lists possible values for 'kind' (midi, audio, return) and default behavior for 'index'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_delete_track or live_create_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating tracks, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor provides any when-not-to-use context. With siblings handling other entities (clips, scenes) it's somewhat clear, but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only query but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior or lack of side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description should clarify that it returns a boolean without modifying state. It also lacks context on what 'transport' refers to (e.g., main session transport vs. specific clip).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it could briefly mention the return type (boolean) or that it reflects the current playback state of the main transport.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and description adds no parameter information. According to the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as checking whether Live's transport is currently playing, using a specific verb ('is playing') and resource ('Live's transport'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like live_play and live_stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention using this to check state before playback-dependent actions, nor does it contrast with live_status for broader status queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'list clips' but does not disclose if the operation is read-only, any side effects, or what details are returned. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 15 words, directly stating the action and parameter usage. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but adequate for a simple listing tool, given the presence of an output schema. However, the missing explanation for the path parameter and lack of context about the Ableton Live domain (implied from name and siblings) reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains track_index (by index vs omit) but provides no explanation for the required path parameter, which likely expects a project file path. This is a critical omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists clips on tracks, with a specific distinction between listing on one track by index or all tracks by omitting the index. This differentiates it from siblings like als_list_tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear guidance on when to use the track_index parameter (to list on one track) and when to omit it (to list on all tracks). However, lacks explicit alternatives or scenarios where not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions what is summarized but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, file existence requirements). Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. Could mention that the file must exist and be a valid .als file, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It implies 'path' is the file path to an .als file, adding some meaning but not explaining format or constraints. Baseline 3 with some added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool summarizes an .als file, listing specific items (tempo, time signature, track/clip counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like als_list_tracks or als_list_clips, which focus on details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While purpose is clear, stating 'Use for a quick overview' would help the agent choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. Although implied, an agent might not infer it without explicit disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part is essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's trivial nature (no parameters, simple return value) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It clearly states what is retrieved and the unit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100% with empty properties), so the description's mention of 'Current Live tempo in BPM' adds meaning about the return value, fulfilling the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Current Live tempo in BPM' clearly states the tool retrieves the current tempo value in beats per minute, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_set_tempo (which sets tempo) and live_status (broader status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool's simplicity implies usage for tempo retrieval, it lacks any when-not or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data points returned but omits details about side effects, permissions, or output format. The description is transparent about the read-only nature implicitly but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at less than 10 words, front-loaded with the key concept 'Live transport state', and no wasted words. Every element is informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main fields. It is missing minor context like the fact that it returns real-time state, but overall sufficient for a status check.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description is clear about what is returned without needing to detail parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it returns 'Live transport state' with specific fields: tempo, time signature, playing flag, song position, track count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'live_is_playing' and 'live_get_tempo' that focus on individual fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as individual status tools. It implies usage for aggregate state retrieval but lacks guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but only states the obvious selection retrieval. Could mention it's read-only, but not necessary given tool name and simplicity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise and directly informative. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and a simple purpose, description is complete. Output schema likely handles return details. Sufficient for agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; baseline of 4 is appropriate. Description adds no parameter info, but none needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves the currently selected track and scene in Live's view, using specific nouns. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on creating or modifying clips/tracks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like `live_list_tracks` or `live_create_track`. Context such as 'use before modifying selection' is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains it runs across every MIDI clip, implying a batch read-only operation. Without annotations, it adds value by disclosing scope and operations, though it omits potential performance impacts or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers the tool's overall function and context, it lacks explanation of the required 'path' parameter and does not mention output or side effects. The presence of an output schema mitigates some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'path' has no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain what the path refers to (likely the project file), leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs key estimation and chord guessing across every MIDI clip in the set, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on single clips or individual analyses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case ('where am I harmonically' overview) but does not explicitly exclude when not to use it or mention alternative tools for single-clip analysis.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes what info is returned but does not indicate behavioral traits like read-only nature, speed, or side effects. For a simple info tool with no parameters, this is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with 'Bridge environment info' immediately indicates purpose. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description lists key output details (storage/temp dirs, UI language). It could mention it is read-only, but overall it is complete enough for a basic info tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter semantics, which is fine. Schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides 'bridge environment info' with specific items: storage/temp dirs and UI language. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on clips, tracks, arrangement, etc., making its purpose unique and clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, given its unique function (environment info) and no overlapping siblings, usage context is implied but not formally stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It clearly states it lists tracks (a read operation) and specifies output fields. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance impact) are disclosed, but the simplicity of a read-only list reduces need.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, a simple listing task, and an existing output schema (as per context), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned, but they are not critical for a straightforward list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. No parameter explanation is needed, so baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb ('list'), resource ('tracks in running Live set'), and the output fields ('kind, name, mute/solo/arm state'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like `als_list_tracks` which likely operates on offline projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when needing current track state from a live set) but provides no explicit when-not or alternative tools. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but lacks guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses non-destructive behavior and output (backup path), but lacks details on edge cases like overwrites or errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each adding essential information: action+location, then guarantees+output. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given only 2 parameters, schema-free, and output schema present, the description is mostly complete except for the optional backup_dir parameter behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the required path (the .als file) and default Backup directory, but does not clarify the optional backup_dir parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool makes a timestamped copy of an .als file in a specific Backup directory, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list versions or modify content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is clear from the action verb and resource, and the assurance 'Never modifies the source' implies safe use for backup, though explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses both success outcome ('ping payload') and failure outcome ('guidance on how to install'), providing sufficient behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and is perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and simple behavior, the description is fully complete. It explains both possible outcomes, and the presence of an output schema further aids understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Check' and resource 'AbleMCP M4L bridge', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which mention 'bridge'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: to check if the bridge is running. While it doesn't provide 'when not to use' or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ABLE-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bassDaddyDevices/ABLE-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bassDaddyDevices/ABLE-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ABLE-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bassDaddyDevices/ABLE-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bassDaddyDevices/ABLE-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bassDaddyDevices/ABLE-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server