ableton-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

apply_midi_chord_arpeggiation

Destructive

Plan or apply guarded arpeggiation of selected MIDI chord notes in an Ableton clip, using stable note IDs and readback verification.

Instructions

Plan or apply guarded chord arpeggiation with stable native note IDs and complete readback verification.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gate`	Yes	Note duration as a fraction of stepBeats.
`mode`	Yes	Pitch traversal order for each complete chord onset.
`seed`	Yes	Deterministic seed used by random mode.
`clipId`	Yes	list_clips Session ID or supported list_arrangement_clips ID.
`dryRun`	No	False executes with token and hash.
`noteIds`	Yes	Unique stable note IDs at complete chord onsets.
`trackId`	Yes	ID from list_tracks.
`planHash`	No	Plan hash.
`stepBeats`	Yes	Spacing between arpeggiated notes in beats.
`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.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.1Oct 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / clipId / description

Previous value: -"Session ID from list_clips; Arrangement ID from list_arrangement_clips where supported."New value: +"list_clips Session ID or supported list_arrangement_clips ID."

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 / clipId / description

Previous value: -"Stable clip ID: track-N:clip-M from list_clips, or track-N:arrangement-clip-M from list_arrangement_clips for tools that support Arrangement clips."New value: +"Session ID from list_clips; Arrangement ID from list_arrangement_clips where supported."

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 / 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 track ID returned by list_tracks."New value: +"ID from list_tracks."

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and non-readonly, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuine context on top: the operation is 'guarded', it relies on stable native note IDs, and it performs complete readback verification after mutation. It stops short of saying what exactly is destroyed (note start times/pitches rewritten) or how failure/rollback behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the guarded/verified nature of the operation. It is dense but every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema, the description covers the safety posture and verification but omits the mechanics of the plan/execute handshake (dryRun → planHash + confirmationToken) and the optimistic-concurrency role of expectedStateVersion. Adequate but leaves an agent to infer the workflow order from the schema alone.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented, and the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond echoing 'stable native note IDs' for noteIds. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Plan or apply') and resource ('chord arpeggiation') plus the key invariant of stable native note IDs, which is concrete enough to act on. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling plan_midi_chord_arpeggiation or other apply_midi_* siblings, leaving the plan-vs-apply routing implicit in the word 'or'.

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 apply' and 'guarded' imply a two-phase preview-then-commit flow, and the presence of dryRun/planHash/confirmationToken in the schema supports that reading. But the description never says when to choose this over plan_midi_chord_arpeggiation, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g. that a plan must be obtained first, or that notes must form complete chord onsets).

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

Deploy Server