ableton-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

adjust_rack_macro_count

Destructive

Adjust a rack's macro count by planning or executing one native add or remove action, then report the observed count; removal is refused if any macro mapping exists.

Instructions

Plan or invoke one native add/remove macro action on an exact rack, then report the observed count. Removal is refused while any macro mapping exists because Live does not expose the affected mapping target.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	One native macro-count adjustment.
`dryRun`	No	False executes with token and hash.
`trackId`	Yes	track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master.
`deviceId`	Yes	ID from list_devices.
`planHash`	No	Plan hash.
`confirmationToken`	No	Single-use plan token.
`expectedStateVersion`	Yes	Observed stateVersion.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1Oct 23, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "oneOf": [
+      {
+        "properties": {
+          "confirmation": {
+            "properties": {
+              "expiresAt": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "planHash": {
+                "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "token": {
+                "minLength": 1,
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "token",
+              "planHash",
+              "expiresAt"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "dryRun": {
+            "const": true
+          },
+          "plan": {
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "dryRun",
+          "plan",
+          "confirmation"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "properties": {
+          "dryRun": {
+            "const": false
+          },
+          "operationOutcome": {
+            "properties": {
+              "evidence": {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              "reason": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "schemaVersion": {
+                "const": 1
+              },
+              "status": {
+                "enum": [
+                  "applied",
+                  "outcome_unknown",
+                  "postconditions_failed",
+                  "pending_postconditions",
+                  "pending_user_action"
+                ]
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "schemaVersion",
+              "status",
+              "reason",
+              "evidence"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "dryRun",
+          "operationOutcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ],
+    "properties": {
+      "dryRun": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "dryRun"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirmationToken / description

Previous value: -"Short-lived, single-use token returned by the matching dry run."New value: +"Single-use plan token."

changedInput schema / properties / deviceId / description

Previous value: -"Stable device ID returned by list_devices."New value: +"ID from list_devices."

changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description

Previous value: -"Omit or true to return a plan; false requires a valid confirmationToken."New value: +"False executes with token and hash."

changedInput schema / properties / expectedStateVersion / description

Previous value: -"Exact stateVersion observed immediately before planning."New value: +"Observed stateVersion."

changedInput schema / properties / planHash / description

Previous value: -"Hash returned by the matching dry run."New value: +"Plan hash."

changedInput schema / properties / trackId / description

Previous value: -"Stable device-owner ID: track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."New value: +"track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.2.0Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit on top by disclosing the removal precondition and its underlying reason (Live does not expose the affected mapping target) plus the fact that the result reports an observed count — context the annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the action and its post-condition come first, the constraint and its rationale second. Every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and schema coverage is complete. What is missing is any framing of the dryRun → planHash/confirmationToken → execute sequence and expectedStateVersion staleness handling across the two calls, which matters for a non-idempotent multi-step mutation.

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 100%, so all seven parameters including the action enum, dryRun, planHash and confirmationToken are already documented, giving baseline 3. The description adds only the 'exact rack' scoping nuance and none of the optimistic-concurrency semantics behind expectedStateVersion, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 names a specific verb pair (add/remove) on a specific resource (native rack macro count) scoped to 'an exact rack', and adds a post-condition ('report the observed count'). It does not name the adjacent siblings (rename_rack_macro, map_rack_macro_to_parameter, randomize_rack_macros) that an agent might confuse it with, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Plan or invoke' hints at the dryRun-then-execute workflow without stating which mode to use first or how planHash/confirmationToken flow. The one real exclusion is given clearly ('Removal is refused while any macro mapping exists'), which is valuable, but no alternative tool is named for the case where a mapping must be handled first.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server