ableton-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_factory_coverage

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare observed top-level Ableton Live factory browser devices against name-matched knowledge profiles to identify missing profiles, not deep integration or full preset/Pack coverage.

Instructions

Compare observed top-level Live factory browser devices with name-matched knowledge profiles. Reports missing profiles, not verified deep integration or all presets/Packs/plugins.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "deepIntegrationVerified": {
+        "const": false
+      },
+      "limitation": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "roots": {
+        "additionalProperties": {
+          "properties": {
+            "loadableCount": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            "missingProfiles": {
+              "items": {
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            },
+            "profiledByName": {
+              "items": {
+                "type": "object"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            },
+            "stateVersion": {
+              "type": "integer"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "stateVersion",
+            "loadableCount",
+            "profiledByName",
+            "missingProfiles"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "roots",
+      "deepIntegrationVerified",
+      "limitation"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[]
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

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

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the comparison is name-matched only, restricted to top-level devices, and reports missing profiles rather than integration depth or preset/Pack coverage.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately qualified by scope limits. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. The description supplies the one thing structured fields can't: what the comparison does and does not claim. Only missing piece is a clear when-to-use cue against sibling coverage/inspection tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 (compare) plus both operands: observed top-level Live factory browser devices and name-matched knowledge profiles. An agent can distinguish this coverage-check from siblings like list_factory_device_profiles or get_plugin_integration_context, though the 'knowledge profiles' concept is jargon that isn't defined.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or named alternatives among the many factory/browser siblings. The clause 'not verified deep integration or all presets/Packs/plugins' works as a scope-boundary (when-not) hint, which is partial guidance at best.

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

Deploy Server