Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_automation_capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check which automation and per-note expression surfaces Ableton Live supports or rejects, so you can plan valid control commands before execution.

Instructions

Report exact supported and unsupported automation and per-note expression surfaces.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "arrangementParameterAutomation": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "handoffs": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "perNoteExpressionCurves": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "perNoteProperties": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "productionBoundaries": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "sessionClipMixerEnvelopes": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "sessionClipParameterEnvelopes": {
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "sessionClipParameterEnvelopes",
+      "sessionClipMixerEnvelopes",
+      "arrangementParameterAutomation",
+      "perNoteProperties",
+      "perNoteExpressionCurves",
+      "productionBoundaries",
+      "handoffs"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes the useful nuance that results are 'exact' and explicitly enumerate both supported and unsupported cases (rather than a partial probe), but says nothing about scope, size, or staticness of the report.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The only cost is that 'surfaces' is vague, so brevity comes at the price of a grain of clarity.

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 exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool in a family of automation siblings, the description leaves the key ambiguity unresolved: whether this is a static capability manifest or a state-dependent query, and what 'per-note expression surfaces' specifically covers.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the description introduces none, so there is nothing to mis-document. With no arguments to clarify, the baseline of 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Report' plus the resource 'supported and unsupported automation and per-note expression surfaces' gestures at a capability-discovery tool, but 'surfaces' is undefined jargon and the description never says whether this is a static schema listing or a dynamic probe. It also fails to distinguish it from near siblings like get_parameter_automation_context and get_clip_parameter_envelope.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no named alternative. An agent has no signal for choosing this over get_parameter_automation_context or override_parameter_automation beyond guessing from the word 'capabilities'.

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