Reads current Ableton Live session state—set, recording, selection, clips, instruments, scale, and MIDI context—in one call without edits, playback, or focus changes.
Read Set, recording, selection, clip and instruments together; configured scale and ambiguous MIDI evidence. No edits, playback or focus changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "focus": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "live": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "musicalContext": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "recording": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "selection": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "setFingerprint": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "stateVersion": {
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "tracks": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "stateVersion",
+ "setFingerprint",
+ "live",
+ "tracks"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "outcome": {
+ "enum": [
+ "unknown",
+ "not_executed"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "message",
+ "outcome"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "error"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+]v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds specific non-effects ('no playback or focus changes'), but 'No edits' largely repeats the read-only annotation and no further behavioral details are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the read operation, with no wasted sentences. Its compressed phrasing, especially 'ambiguous MIDI evidence,' makes it slightly cryptic, but it remains appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 explained, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a no-parameter aggregate read amid many sibling context tools, the description leaves key selection context and the meaning of 'ambiguous MIDI evidence' insufficiently clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a read operation over several session domains (Set, recording, selection, clip, instruments), but the phrase 'ambiguous MIDI evidence' is opaque and the overall purpose is not clearly framed as a single session-orientation snapshot. It does not explicitly distinguish this aggregate read from nearby context tools such as get_live_state or get_selection_context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite many sibling context/read tools. The only boundary given is 'No edits, playback or focus changes,' which describes non-effects rather than usage selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.