This server provides comprehensive, low-latency control over Ableton Live's object model, enabling AI agents to automate nearly any task within the DAW — from creating and manipulating clips to managing devices and integrating external content, with the flexibility to execute arbitrary Python code.
Core Object Model Access
Evaluate arbitrary Python expressions/statements inside Live (live_eval, live_exec) with song, app, and Live bindings
Read/write any property, call any method, and list children on Live objects (live_get, live_set, live_call, live_children)
Run multiple operations in a single round-trip for efficiency (live_batch)
Session & Set Inspection
Get compact, filterable summaries of the entire Live set — tracks, devices, clips, return tracks, master track (live_set_summary)
Check bridge health and version (live_ping)
MIDI Clip Editing
Create MIDI clips, add, update, and list notes (pitch, velocity, duration, mute, probability, etc.)
Automation & Envelopes
Inspect and edit clip automation envelopes for any parameter
Generate parameter automation driven by MIDI note velocities
Audio Clip Tools
Insert local audio files as Arrangement clips, manage warp markers and warp mode
Duplicate Session clips to the Arrangement view
Track & Device Control
Add tracks and insert built-in Ableton devices by name
List all device parameters with metadata (min, max, quantization) and set values with validation
Control third-party plugins (VSTs, AUs) via the object model
Browser / Asset Management
Search Ableton's browser for instruments, effects, samples, and presets
Load or preview browser items onto tracks
Audio Analysis & Feedback
Capture audio signals from any point in the signal chain via the built-in "Agent Audio Tap" Max for Live device, enabling mixing, mastering, signal analysis, and spectrogram generation
Event Observation
Subscribe to and drain property change events on any Live object for reactive workflows
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@ableton-live-mcp add a reverb effect to the vocal track"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Ever wanted to control Ableton with just your voice? Me too! I made this MCP server so I could just ask Codex to do anything in Ableton Live for me, while I was nap-trapped by my baby.
Unlike other Ableton MCPs I tried, this one can do pretty much anything that is possible via Ableton's Object model; the agent can just eval arbitrary python that runs inside Ableton. It also has some tools defined for common tasks so those work faster and more reliably. I had Codex CLI optimize this for hours with the new /goal command to prioritize low end-to-end latency, high reliability, low token usage, while maintaining full flexibility.
Things you can use it for: create MIDI clips, insert audio files, general Ableton questions (with this, your agent can see your whole live set), add tracks with different devices and effects, analyze harmony, analyze audio signals at any point in the signal chain, generate spectrograms, clip automation, setting up mastering or vocal processing chains, insert MIDI the agent finds from the web... it's very general purpose, I'm not sure what the limits are.
Just tell your AI agent (Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot, Gemini, etc.) to:
Set up the https://github.com/bschoepke/ableton-live-mcp MCP server for me
It should work on Mac and Windows with recent Ableton versions, but I have only tested it on Ableton Live Suite 12.3.8 on macOS Tahoe.
Back up your Live Set before using this. The MCP can edit your set directly and could corrupt it.
Related MCP server: Ableton Live MCP
git pull this repo or ask your agent to:
Update the https://github.com/bschoepke/ableton-live-mcp MCP server for me
Here are a couple examples of live sets made from scratch with Codex in just a few minutes, along with their prompts. After it makes something, you can ask for follow up changes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dRRrIY7NI0
The chat messages I sent to Codex to make this:
in ableton, make a self reflective song, with audio vocals (via macos say) and chip tunes and 80's drum machines. should be a real edm banger
Follow up prompts:
i want midi for everything but vocals please, with ableton devices. not prerendered audio for instruments
needs some fills
and should hit way harder after "3-2-1 i become the sound"
the vocals are squished too much (read too quickly), give them a little more length
add some dynamics, the song is basically one volume. and some pumping side chain
improve dynamics of the clap, seems a bit flat and indistinguished, want it harder after the 3-2-1 drop
introduce a new element on a new track after the 3-2-1 drop, that comes in but then recedes before the final exit
doesn't seem like the new thing has any notes
the element is a bit muddy/indistinct. perhaps it needs simplification and more space, different instrument choice, i dunno
Prompt used to make this:
In Ableton, make a piano duet that tells the story of people debating the positive and negative merits of AI. The composition should be both beautiful and dynamic but surprising and fresh. Use Keyscape devices.
The MCP includes an "Agent Audio Tap" Max for Live device that enables the agent to capture audio signals at any part of the signal processing chain. This gives the agent a full feedback loop for mixing and mastering tasks: it can capture audio signals for further processing with custom python, then tweak your Ableton devices, and then repeat.
Example usage where I asked Codex to generate a spectrogram of two piano tracks I had:
Control your external synthesizers and other hardware with the MCP
Ask it questions like "why does my mix sound muddy?" or "how do I sidechain my bass track?"
Ask it to do things like "add a chord track that fits with my melody" or "give me a basic backing track for me to noodle on my guitar with"
You can tell it use third party plugins (VSTs, audio units) like Serum and Keyscape
Tell your agent to incorporate your existing vocal samples, including asking it to trim silence and transcribe your audio samples before creatively incorporating them into your live set
Ask your agent to set up crazy user controlled DJ effects
Experiment with VJ plugins like Videosync to make music videos driven by your live set
Run multiple generic bridge operations in one Live main-thread request; preserves full object-model flexibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operations | Yes | ||
| continue_on_error | No | ||
| include_traceback | No | ||
| expected_set_signature | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. |
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 preserving object-model flexibility but lacks details on atomicity, error handling, or 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with key action and result, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not cover return format, error handling, or processing semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 9 parameters with only 11% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter beyond the schema, leaving the agent uninformed about their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs multiple generic bridge operations in one request, which is specific and distinguishes it from single-operation siblings like live_get, live_set, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for batching, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Browser roots/filter types/semantic API exposure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, or operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly terse and underspecified. It is not structured to front-load a clear action or purpose, nor does it use whitespace or formatting beneficially.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain what information is provided. It fails to do so, leaving the tool's functionality completely ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, but the description does not add meaningful context. It offers only cryptic labels instead of explaining what the tool returns or how it is invoked.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a fragmented list ('Browser roots/filter types/semantic API exposure') rather than a clear statement of what the tool does. It implies some relation to browser capabilities but lacks a verb or resource context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 sibling tools like live_browser_roots or live_browser_search. The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Load BrowserItem from search by id, uri, or path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | Yes | ||
| target_track | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
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 only states the core action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, mutates state, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a tool that likely retrieves and loads an item, the lack of any safety or behavioral context is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. It is as concise as possible while conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 4 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what 'loading' entails (e.g., does it return the item? modify state?), the role of target_track, or the meaning of expected_set_signature. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (25%), and the description adds minimal value beyond what is already in the schema. It clarifies that the 'item' parameter accepts id, uri, or path, but offers no explanation for the other three parameters (target_track, timeout, expected_set_signature). The description does not compensate for the low coverage of undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Load' and the resource 'BrowserItem' with explicit search criteria (by id, uri, or path). It distinguishes from siblings like live_browser_search (which lists items) and live_browser_preview (which likely provides a preview), as loading indicates a retrieval operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that the tool is used after a browser search by mentioning 'from search', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., live_browser_preview) or provide exclusions. It offers no guidance on prerequisites or common scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Preview or stop previewing a BrowserItem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| stop | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility but only gives minimal info. It doesn't explain what 'preview' means, side effects, or how the stop flag behaves. The behavior regarding stale IDs vs. URIs vs. paths is only hinted in the schema, not in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, which is good for front-loading. However, it may be too brief given the tool's complexity, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter, a boolean flag, and many sibling tools with similar purposes, the description is far from complete. It lacks information on return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., from live_browser_search), and how preview relates to other operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention parameters at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema has detailed descriptions for item properties and stop, the description fails to guide the agent on how to use these parameters effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is for previewing or stopping preview of a BrowserItem. It specifies the verb ('Preview' or 'stop previewing') and resource ('BrowserItem'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like live_browser_load or live_browser_search, which could be related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. For example, it doesn't say whether previewing is distinct from loading, or if this tool is meant for temporary previews. There are no exclusions or context hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List app.browser roots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'List app.browser roots.' with no mention of side effects, rate limits, data freshness, or return format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what 'roots' entails or if the operation has any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two words ('List app.browser roots.'), which is extremely concise and fully front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification. For a no-parameter tool, it is acceptable but could benefit from a bit more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate to convey the basic operation. However, the term 'roots' is not explained, and the agent lacks any context about the return value or the structure of the browser. This is the minimum viable completeness for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). The description adds no param information, but given the trivial parameter count, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'List' and the resource 'app.browser roots', clearly indicating this tool returns root items in a browser context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'live_browser_search' or 'live_browser_load', leaving the scope slightly ambiguous but still clear enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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_browser_search' or 'live_browser_load'. There are no examples of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Bounded app.browser search; returns BrowserItem ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search terms. | |
| roots | No | Roots: instruments, drums, samples, plugins, etc. | |
| limit | No | Max matches. | |
| max_depth | No | Max depth. | |
| max_visited | No | Max visited. | |
| loadable_only | No | ||
| include_folders | No | ||
| stop_on_limit | No | ||
| stop_score | No | 0 exact, 1 query in name, 3 path. | |
| match_all_terms | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how 'bounded' impacts behavior. The return type (ids) is stated, but no details on limits or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it omits important context. It is concise but sacrifices completeness. Slightly more detail on 'bounded' and return format would improve it without adding bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the purpose of key parameters, how results are structured, or error handling. A more complete description would mention search scope, filtering, and result format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 60% of parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds no additional meaning. It does not explain any parameters or their semantics beyond what the schema provides. Parameters like 'loadable_only' and 'include_folders' remain unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a 'bounded app.browser search' and returns 'BrowserItem ids', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_browser_load or live_browser_preview. The verb 'search' and resource 'browser' are specific. However, the term 'bounded' is vague and could be clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, such as live_browser_roots or live_browser_capabilities. It does not specify prerequisites or contexts where this search is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Call one Live object method.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| method | Yes | ||
| args | No | ||
| kwargs | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., thread blocking, authorization needs, side effects). The minimal description 'Call one Live object method' provides no such information, leaving the agent uninformed about important runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (7 words), which is good for brevity but comes at the cost of missing essential information. It is not well-structured for quick consumption as it lacks a definition of the tool's role relative to siblings.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations) and lack of sibling differentiation, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to equip the AI agent with enough context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 17% of parameters have descriptions in the schema ('timeout' described); the description adds no parameter meaning. 'ref', 'method', 'args', 'kwargs', 'expected_set_signature' are left entirely to inference from names, making correct invocation difficult.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Call') and target ('one Live object method'), indicating a remote procedure invocation. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like live_eval or live_exec, which also invoke methods or code.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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_eval, live_exec, or live_set. The description lacks context for the AI agent to choose correctly among many similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List child objects from a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| child | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. |
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 only says 'List child objects,' missing details about side effects, permissions, or that it is a read-only operation. The timeout parameter hint is in schema, not description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (one sentence) but underspecified. While concise, it fails to provide necessary detail, making it unhelpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's role in Live's API or how to use the parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 13%, with only timeout described. The description adds no information about any parameters, leaving the agent to guess meanings of ref, child, limit, etc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a verb (List) and resource (child objects from a collection), but 'collection' is vague and doesn't clarify the context (Ableton Live hierarchy). It provides minimal distinction from sibling tools like live_get or live_browser_roots.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 when not to use it. The description lacks any context for usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add MIDI notes to a clip from JSON note specs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| notes | Yes | ||
| clear | No | ||
| clear_range | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It does not mention that the tool mutates the clip, or explain side effects like clearing existing notes (despite 'clear' and 'clear_range' parameters existing). Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is too terse; it lacks critical information such as parameter explanations and behavioral context. Conciseness is not justified when essential details are omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the clip, the effect of clear/clear_range, or return behavior. Significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 17% (only 'timeout' has a description). The description adds no extra meaning to parameters like 'ref', 'notes', 'clear', or 'clear_range'. Agents cannot infer how to structure the note specs or interpret the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Add MIDI notes') and resource ('to a clip from JSON note specs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like live_clip_notes and live_clip_update_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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_clip_update_notes, or prerequisites. The description is silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Duplicate a Session clip to Arrangement on a target track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | ||
| clip | Yes | ||
| destination_time | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It only says 'Duplicate', which is ambiguous (copy vs move). It omits details like effects on original clip, handling of existing arrangement clips, or the asynchronous nature implied by the timeout parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, appropriate in length, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While not verbose, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and nested objects.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain parameter roles, behavior of duplication, error conditions, or relationship to other tools, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only timeout has description). The tool description does not explain any parameter meanings beyond their names, such as what track/clip objects require (path/id), destination_time format, or expected_set_signature purpose, leaving the agent with incomplete semantic information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Duplicate a Session clip to Arrangement on a target track', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like live_clip_add_notes or live_track_create_audio_clip by specifying the unique duplication from Session to Arrangement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for copying a Session clip to Arrangement on a specific track, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor prerequisites or constraints like requiring the clip to be in Session view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect or edit a clip automation envelope for one parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| parameter | Yes | ||
| create | No | ||
| clear | No | ||
| delete_range | No | ||
| insert_steps | No | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether operations are destructive, what permissions are needed, or if it supports both read and write simultaneously. 'Inspect or edit' is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, it does not provide enough information to be helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It omits return value, behavior of each parameter, and how to differentiate inspection from editing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. Key parameters like 'ref', 'parameter', 'create', 'clear' are not explained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the resource (clip automation envelope) and action (inspect or edit) for one parameter. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'live_clip_velocity_envelope' which likely has similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 other clip-related tools or envelopes. Lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List MIDI notes from a clip compactly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'list ... compactly' without explaining what 'compactly' means, what the output looks like, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. Behaviors like handling of limits or time ranges are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but likely too terse given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure and detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or the meaning of 'compactly'. Essential context for usage is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 9 parameters with only 11% coverage (timeout has a description). The description does not clarify any parameter's purpose, format, or relationship. For example, what detail or limit do, or how start_time/end_time filter notes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'MIDI notes from a clip', and includes 'compactly' to hint at a summarized format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_clip_add_notes which modify notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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., live_clip_envelope or live_clip_update_notes). It does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Update existing MIDI notes by note_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| updates | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
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 only states 'update existing MIDI notes' but does not describe mutation behavior (e.g., partial vs full replace), side effects, or required permissions. The tool modifies state but the description gives no details on what happens to other properties not specified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex nested input schema (ref object, updates array with many optional fields), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the workflow, how the updates array interacts with existing notes, or what success looks like. More context is needed for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only timeout has a description). The description provides no additional meaning for parameters like ref or updates. It does not explain that note_id is required in each update item or what the fields represent. Description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it updates existing MIDI notes by note_id, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like live_clip_add_notes (adds new notes) or live_clip_notes (gets notes), but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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_clip_add_notes. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or conditions under which updates are appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create parameter automation from MIDI note velocities in a clip.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| parameter | Yes | ||
| min_value | No | ||
| max_value | No | ||
| invert | No | ||
| clear | No | ||
| step_duration | No | ||
| start_time | No | ||
| end_time | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing automation is overwritten, required permissions, or 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but too sparse. Could be split to address purpose and parameters without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 11 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'ref', 'parameter', and 'min_value' are left completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it creates parameter automation from MIDI note velocities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like live_clip_envelope (general envelope) and live_clip_notes (note editing) by specifying the source (velocities). Still, it could explicitly differentiate from live_clip_envelope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., live_clip_envelope). No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect or edit audio clip warp state and markers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| warping | No | ||
| warp_mode | No | ||
| add_markers | No | ||
| move_markers | No | ||
| remove_beat_times | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it merely states 'inspect or edit' without clarifying side effects, destructive potential, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating. The agent cannot infer safety or transactional characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but potentially too brief given the tool's complexity. It uses active verbs and is front-loaded, but lacks structured details like bullet points or parameter groups that would improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and the description omits any return value information. It does not explain the effect of omitting optional parameters, nor does it clarify whether the tool performs a read operation when only 'ref' is provided. The description is incomplete for a tool with such a complex input structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 8 parameters (1 required) and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description adds no value by explaining any parameter. Complex fields like 'add_markers', 'move_markers', and 'expected_set_signature' remain opaque, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (audio clip warp state and markers) and actions (inspect or edit). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like live_clip_add_notes or live_clip_envelope, which focus on different aspects of clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context about what scenarios are appropriate for inspecting vs. editing, or how it relates to other clip manipulation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compact Device parameter metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| query | No | Terms matched against parameter names. | |
| limit | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The description is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words) but at the expense of providing necessary information. It is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is vastly incomplete; it does not explain return values, parameter structure, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only query and timeout have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning for any parameter, leaving agents to guess meanings of ref, limit, detail, etc.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Compact Device parameter metadata' lacks a verb (e.g., list, get, search) and does not specify the action or resource clearly. It fails to distinguish from siblings like live_get or live_browser_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Evaluate a Python expression inside Live with song, app, obj, and Live bindings. General Live object-model bridge; examples are heuristics, not limits. Use live_exec for statements; prefer installed browser/library assets before generated assets unless asked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expr | Yes | ||
| ref | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so description must carry the burden. It mentions the evaluation context and timeout, but does not disclose error behavior, side effects, or safety. Adequate but missing key behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences covering purpose, alternative, and preference. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite concise purpose, the description omits essential context: return format, how ref works, error handling, and which bindings are available. With no output schema and many parameters, the agent cannot fully understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 14% (only timeout has a description). The tool description adds no explanation of expr, ref, detail, max_items, etc. With 7 parameters and a nested object, the lack of semantic detail hinders correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it evaluates Python expressions with specific bindings (song, app, obj, Live). It distinguishes from sibling 'live_exec' by noting that live_exec is for statements, making the purpose specific and non-overlapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: use live_exec for statements, and prefer installed assets over generated unless asked. This helps the agent choose between tools, though it does not cover all possible contexts or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Drain retained Live listener events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral details. The term 'drain' suggests a destructive or mutating operation, but this is not confirmed. Side effects, permissions, and response behavior are not disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks essential information. It is not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified, leaving ambiguity about the tool's operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is completely insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, its side effects, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'limit' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and is not explained in the tool description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify its role (e.g., maximum number of events to drain).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Drain retained Live listener events' uses a specific verb 'Drain' and identifies a resource, but does not clarify what 'drain' means in this context (e.g., remove, process) or what 'retained Live listener events' are. It distinguishes from siblings like 'live_call' or 'live_set' but is still vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites 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.
Execute Python statements inside Live with song, app, obj, this, Live, and result bindings. Set result to a compact dict/list summary to return it. General Live object-model bridge; examples are heuristics, not limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| ref | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions result binding but not side effects, destructive potential, or required permissions, leaving the agent unaware of risks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, but the second sentence is somewhat vague. Space is used efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how to use ref or control output with detail/max_items, making it incomplete for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 13% (only timeout described). The description does not explain most parameters (code, ref, detail, max_items, etc.), failing to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool executes Python statements with specific bindings, but does not differentiate from sibling live_eval, leaving ambiguity about when to use which.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like live_eval. The statement 'examples are heuristics, not limits' is vague and does not provide clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolve object; read selected properties/children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| properties | No | ||
| children | No | ||
| child_limit | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'read' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has side effects. No information about error handling, rate limits, or system impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence is concise, but for a tool with 9 parameters, it is likely too terse and lacks structure. Could be expanded without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. No return value info, no error conditions, no examples, and no guidance on how parameters interact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11% (only 'timeout' described). The description adds no meaning beyond parameter names; 'read selected properties/children' hints at two parameters but leaves the other seven (e.g., child_limit, detail, max_items) unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'read selected properties/children,' which gives a clear verb and resource. However, the phrase 'Resolve object' is vague and could be more specific. It distinguishes from siblings like live_call or live_eval but not clearly from live_children.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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_children or live_observe. No mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add or remove a listener for an object's property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| property | Yes | ||
| enabled | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation (add/remove) but does not specify side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or whether multiple listeners are allowed. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the implications of invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it wastes potential by being too vague; it could include more details without losing conciseness. It is not overly long, but it sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and the presence of a nested object parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, success/failure indicators, or how the listener interacts with the Live API. An agent would miss critical context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters. It does not clarify that 'enabled' likely toggles between adding and removing, nor does it explain the structure of 'ref' (path and id). With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (add or remove a listener) on a specific resource (an object's property). It distinguishes from siblings like live_get or live_set by mentioning 'listener', which is a unique concept among the tools. However, it could be more precise about what 'listener' means in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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_get or live_events. There is no mention of prerequisites, like ensuring the object exists, or whether the listener should be added before or after certain operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set one DeviceParameter value with min/max and quantized validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| coerce | No | Clamp to min/max and round quantized values instead of rejecting. | |
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions validation but doesn't disclose behavior like coercion or rejection details. 'coerce' parameter modifies behavior, but not described. Partial transparency only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise. No wasted words, but could benefit from slight expansion. Good structure for a short description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, description is too minimal. Lacks explanation of return values, parameter interactions (e.g., coerce), and behavior on invalid input. Incomplete for this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is low (40%). Description adds context about validation for 'value' and implies 'coerce' usage, but doesn't explain 'ref' nested object or 'expected_set_signature'. Adds some value beyond schema but insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Set', resource 'one DeviceParameter value', and adds validation context with min/max and quantized validation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'live_batch' and 'live_set'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Sibling 'live_set' might overlap, but description doesn't differentiate. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check bridge health/version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation but does not describe what is returned (e.g., status string, version info) or 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, with no superfluous information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description should explain the return value. It only says 'check health/version' without specifying format or content, making it incomplete for a tool with no output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check bridge health/version.' clearly states the tool's function using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('bridge health/version'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool has a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for health checks but provides no explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. It is minimally adequate for a simple ping tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Set a writable Live object property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| property | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
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 states the basic action. It does not mention synchronous vs asynchronous behavior, error handling, or what happens if the property is not writable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too brief for a tool with complex parameters and nested objects. It could be restructured to front-load critical info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error cases, or usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'timeout' has a description). The description does not add meaning to the ref, property, value, or expected_set_signature parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'writable Live object property', distinguishing it from related tools like live_get (get) and live_call (call method).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings, such as live_parameter_set, which also sets properties. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Compact set summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_limit | No | ||
| clip_slot_limit | No | ||
| device_limit | No | ||
| arrangement_clip_limit | No | ||
| track_query | No | ||
| include_return_tracks | No | ||
| include_master_track | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| max_items | No | ||
| max_depth | No | ||
| max_string_length | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, mutability, side effects, performance implications). The one-word description adds no transparency 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While brief, the description sacrifices clarity for conciseness. It is underspecified for a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, failing to earn its place by providing necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is vastly incomplete. It does not explain what 'set' refers to, return format, or how parameters affect behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 8% (1 of 12 parameters described). The description adds no meaning to parameters like 'track_limit', 'track_query', etc. Parameters are left completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Compact set summary' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'live_set_summary', adding only the word 'compact' without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves, generates). It does not distinguish it from siblings like 'live_set' or 'live_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 over siblings (e.g., 'live_set', 'live_get'). The description lacks context about appropriate scenarios or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create an Arrangement audio clip on a track from a local audio file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| destination_time | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'create' implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects, permissions, or what happens on conflicts. Minimal beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, no fluff, but it's too short and sacrifices necessary detail. It could be more structured with bullet points or additional sentences for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks context on return values, error conditions, or usage examples.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (timeout described). The description does not explain key parameters like ref (nested), file_path, destination_time, or name. It adds little meaning beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates an Arrangement audio clip on a track from a local audio file, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like live_clip_duplicate_to_arrangement or live_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, no prerequisites or exclusions provided. The description is too brief to help an agent decide contextually.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Insert a named built-in Live device on a track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| device_name | Yes | ||
| device_index | No | ||
| timeout | No | Seconds to wait for Live's main thread. | |
| expected_set_signature | No |
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 only says 'Insert' without detailing side effects (e.g., whether it replaces devices, requirements for track state, or error handling). 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. However, it could be expanded slightly to cover key parameters without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only 'timeout' has a description). The tool description adds no explanation of the parameters 'ref', 'device_name', 'device_index', or 'expected_set_signature', leaving significant ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Insert'), the resource ('named built-in Live device'), and the target ('on a track'). It is specific enough to convey the core function, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like other device operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The agent gets no context for decision-making between this and other device-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Many tools have clear, distinct purposes for specific resources like clips, devices, and browser. However, the generic object-model bridge tools (live_call, live_get, live_set, live_eval, live_exec, live_observe, live_batch) have overlapping functionality and subtle differences that could cause confusion for agents. Descriptions help but don't fully resolve ambiguity.
All tools start with 'live_' and most follow a 'live_[resource]_[action]' pattern, e.g., live_clip_add_notes, live_browser_search. A few generic tools like live_call, live_children, and live_ping deviate from this pattern but are still readable. The naming is mostly consistent with minor exceptions.
27 tools cover a broad range of Ableton Live functionality including clips, devices, browser, tracks, and a general object bridge. The count is slightly high but justified by the complexity of the domain. It is well-scoped and not excessive.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for major workflows: browser navigation, clip editing (notes, envelopes, warp), device control, and track management. The inclusion of general bridge tools (live_get, live_set, live_call, live_eval) fills any gaps, allowing agents to perform essentially any operation on the Live object model.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
AI music, video, image, and voice tools callable by agents with USDC payments via x402 on Base.
Give your AI agents the tools to build, manage, and run automation workflows.
Build, validate, and deploy multi-agent AI solutions from any AI environment.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bschoepke/ableton-live-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
