ableton-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

capture_live_audio

Destructive

Record a bounded Live Resampling take of current Ableton Live playback into a new muted, monitor-off audio track, then stop and disarm it automatically.

Instructions

Plan or start a bounded Live Resampling recording of current playback into a new muted, monitor-off audio track. Requires playback, recording off and no armed tracks. Only its capture is stopped/disarmed automatically, even after client disconnect. No isolated-stem, hardware or listener proof.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the retained capture track.
`beats`	Yes	Record 1-16 beats, lasting 0.5-30 seconds at current tempo.
`dryRun`	No	False executes with token and hash.
`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"
+  }
+]

Addedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the created track is muted/monitor-off, cleanup stops and disarms only this capture even after client disconnect, and 'no isolated-stem, hardware or listener proof' warns the agent that success is not independently verifiable. That last caveat is slightly telegraphic but is genuinely useful context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then preconditions, then lifecycle/cleanup behavior, then limits. No filler; the only cost is that the final sentence is compressed into a near-note form ('No isolated-stem, hardware or listener proof') that takes a re-read.

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?

With annotations, a full schema, and an output schema, most burden is carried elsewhere, and the description still covers preconditions, what is created, cleanup semantics, and verification limits. The remaining gap is the explicit handoff to the capture-status and finish siblings, which an agent would need for the full workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so beats range, name length, dryRun/planHash/confirmationToken and expectedStateVersion are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair ('Plan or start') and resource ('bounded Live Resampling recording of current playback into a new muted, monitor-off audio track'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, name the lifecycle siblings (get_live_audio_capture / finish_live_audio_capture), so an agent must infer the pairing from names alone.

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?

'Requires playback, recording off and no armed tracks' gives concrete preconditions, which is real usage guidance. But it never says when to use dryRun/plan versus execute, nor points to get_live_audio_capture or finish_live_audio_capture as the follow-up and teardown steps, leaving the multi-call workflow implicit.

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

Deploy Server