Skip to main content
Glama
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_factory_device_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads native parameters, matched factory knowledge, group coverage, and duplicate-name warnings for an Ableton device. Use track/device IDs to inspect Auto Shift key/scale and plug-in/Max controls.

Instructions

Read native parameters, matched factory knowledge and group coverage. Auto Shift includes song key, Scale Aware, manual Root/Scale and selected scale source; no proof of audible correction. Includes configured plug-in controls or exposed/enabled Max for Live parameter IDs and duplicate-name warnings. Excludes hidden plug-in state, Max patch internals and modulation targets.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trackIdYestrack-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master.
deviceIdYesID from list_devices.

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": {
+      "device": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "parameters": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "profile": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "stateVersion": {
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "trackId": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "stateVersion",
+      "trackId",
+      "device"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / deviceId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable device ID returned by list_devices."New value: +"ID from list_devices."
    • changedInput schema / properties / trackId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable device-owner ID: track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."New value: +"track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety. The description adds material behavior beyond annotations: Auto Shift fields, the caveat 'no proof of audible correction', plugin/Max for Live parameter ID exposure, duplicate-name warnings, and explicit exclusions of hidden state, patch internals, and modulation targets.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. The middle Auto Shift sentence is dense, but the overall size is economical for a complex context tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies enough domain boundaries and caveats to invoke the tool correctly. Missing explicit sibling routing is a usage issue, not a completeness gap for calling the 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% and both required params (trackId, deviceId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline is 3.

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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb ('Read') and the exact resources (native parameters, matched factory knowledge, group coverage). The inclusion/exclusion list further bounds the tool, but no sibling tool is named, so differentiation from list_device_parameters/get_factory_coverage is implicit.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is provided. The exclusions describe data scope rather than task selection, so an agent must infer that this getter is for factory-aware device context.

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