Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_track_ungrouping_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether grouped tracks were removed and what descendants, membership, and routing remain for a retained ungroupingId, even after a lost reply. Read-only; never repeats removal.

Instructions

Inspect actual removal, retained descendants, membership, exposed material and routing for a retained ungroupingId, including after a lost reply. Read-only; never repeats removal or regroups. Runtime handles can expire or disappear after bridge reload. Missing handles require current-track inspection. All profile.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ungroupingIdYesRetained ungroupingId from the plan or result.

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": {
+      "inspectionRequired": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "members": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "stateVersion": {
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "ungroupVerified": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "ungroupingId": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "stateVersion",
+      "ungroupingId",
+      "status",
+      "members",
+      "ungroupVerified",
+      "inspectionRequired"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. Addedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It goes further by disclosing that it never repeats removal or regroups, and that runtime handles can expire or disappear after a bridge reload — genuine operational context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing response shape or failure modes in detail.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Opening sentence is front-loaded with the operation, which is good. But the prose is dense jargon ('exposed material', 'All profile.') and that trailing fragment is opaque rather than informative, so not every sentence clearly earns its place.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the important subtleties: read-only behavior, handle expiry after bridge reload, and the fallback to current-track inspection. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the single parameter is fully documented as 'Retained ungroupingId from the plan or result.' The description echoes 'retained ungroupingId' but adds no format, sourcing, or lifetime detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Inspect' plus the resource 'for a retained ungroupingId' states a specific operation and scopes it to the post-ungroup state. It implicitly contrasts with get_track_grouping_status and ungroup_tracks, though it never names them. The listed inspection facets (removal, descendants, membership, routing) give an agent a concrete sense of what 'status' means here.

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?

'including after a lost reply' and 'Missing handles require current-track inspection' give real use-case cues. However, it never names an alternative tool (get_track_grouping_status, ungroup_tracks, or current-track inspection calls) nor states explicit exclusions, so an agent must infer which sibling to fall back on.

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