Skip to main content
Glama
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

inspect_clip_groove_postconditions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect extraction, baking, or groove-removal postconditions against a supplied pre-action groove context snapshot; does not execute the action.

Instructions

Read current native context and inspect extraction, baking, or plain groove-removal postconditions against a supplied pre-action get_clip_groove_context snapshot. Does not execute the UI action, prove provenance, or validate audible equivalence. Extraction expects one appended groove and unchanged source/timing; baking expects removed assignment and unchanged unrelated timing/shared context; removal also requires unchanged source content.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
beforeYesComplete pre-action native clip groove context snapshot; supplied data is not authenticated history.
clipIdYeslist_clips Session ID or supported list_arrangement_clips ID.
trackIdYesID from list_tracks.
operationYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / clipId / description
      Previous value: -"Session ID from list_clips; Arrangement ID from list_arrangement_clips where supported."New value: +"list_clips Session ID or supported list_arrangement_clips ID."
    • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedOutput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "actionProvenanceVerified": {
+        "const": false
+      },
+      "observed": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "operation": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "postconditionsObserved": {
+        "const": true
+      },
+      "sourceContentChanged": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "operation",
+      "postconditionsObserved",
+      "actionProvenanceVerified",
+      "sourceContentChanged",
+      "observed"
+    ],
+    "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 / clipId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable clip ID: track-N:clip-M from list_clips, or track-N:arrangement-clip-M from list_arrangement_clips for tools that support Arrangement clips."New value: +"Session ID from list_clips; Arrangement ID from list_arrangement_clips where supported."
    • changedInput schema / properties / trackId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable track ID returned by list_tracks."New value: +"ID from list_tracks."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / operation / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "bake",
-  "extract"
-]New value: +[
+  "bake",
+  "extract",
+  "remove"
+]
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it does not prove provenance or validate audible equivalence, and it describes expected postconditions per operation. It still leaves failure modes and mismatch reporting to the output schema.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by concise non-goals and operation-specific expectations. Every sentence carries useful information, and no space is wasted on restating the name or schema.

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?

For a read-only inspection tool with annotations and an output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly. It identifies the required pre-action snapshot, the operation-specific expectations, and the non-goals, so there are no major gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds real semantic value by defining what each operation value expects to observe: extraction expects one appended groove and unchanged source/timing, baking expects removed assignment and unchanged unrelated timing/shared context, and removal also requires unchanged source content. The before parameter is also explained as a pre-action get_clip_groove_context snapshot.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it reads native context and inspects groove-removal postconditions against a pre-action snapshot. The three operation modes (extract, bake, remove) are named explicitly, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_clip_groove_context tool that produces the snapshot.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Makes clear this is a verification step performed after an extraction, baking, or removal action, using a supplied pre-action snapshot. It also states the tool does not execute the UI action, which is a useful usage boundary. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond that non-goal.

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