Skip to main content
Glama
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_history_state

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current availability of undo and redo in Ableton Live so MCP clients can avoid invalid edit-history actions.

Instructions

Read current Ableton undo and redo availability.

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": {
+      "canRedo": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "canUndo": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "clipId": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "deviceId": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "identityToken": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "reason": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "setFingerprint": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "stateVersion": {
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "supported": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "trackId": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "stateVersion"
+    ],
+    "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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that it reads 'current' availability; it does not disclose anything further about return shape, edge cases, or side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage but not richly informative.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the read operation and its target.

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?

For a trivial no-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it says what state is read. It does not need to describe return values, and no critical behavioral detail is missing, though a hint about output structure could add marginal value.

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, so the schema has nothing to document and the parameter semantics burden is minimal. The description does not need to explain any 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('undo and redo availability'), making the tool's purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the mutation-oriented siblings 'undo' and 'redo', though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this should be called to check whether undo or redo is currently possible. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over calling undo/redo directly, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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