Skip to main content
Glama

delete_arrangement_cue_point

Destructive

Plan or delete a specific Arrangement cue point in Ableton Live by providing its ID and state version, with optional dry-run and confirmation token for safe execution.

Instructions

Plan or delete one exact Arrangement cue point.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNoFalse executes with token and hash.
planHashNoPlan hash.
cuePointIdYesCurrent cue-point ID from list_arrangement_cue_points.
confirmationTokenNoSingle-use plan token.
expectedStateVersionYesObserved stateVersion.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • 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"
      +  }
      +]
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • 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 / cuePointId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable cue-point ID."New value: +"Current cue-point ID from list_arrangement_cue_points."
    • 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."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the hint of a planning mode ('Plan or delete'), which aligns with the dryRun/token parameters, but does not disclose irreversibility, permission needs, or what the delete removes.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse for a tool with a multi-step plan/execute contract, but the sentence itself wastes nothing.

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?

An output schema and rich annotations exist, so the description need not explain returns or safety. However, it omits the central two-phase workflow (plan with dryRun/planHash, then confirm with confirmationToken) that the parameter set implies, leaving the operational contract under-explained for a destructive tool.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters; per the rubric this sets a baseline of 3. The description's 'Plan or delete' gives a faint mapping to the dry-run vs. execute parameters but adds no format or sequencing detail beyond the schema text.

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 ('delete') and resource ('Arrangement cue point'), and the resource name alone distinguishes it from siblings like create_arrangement_cue_point, rename_arrangement_cue_point, and jump_to_arrangement_cue_point. The 'Plan or delete' phrasing slightly muddies the single action but still conveys the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never states that the cue point ID must come from list_arrangement_cue_points, nor explains the plan-then-execute sequence implied by dryRun/planHash/confirmationToken, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools