Skip to main content
Glama
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_arrangement_cue_points

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all Arrangement cue points with current inventory IDs and beat positions, helping you locate song sections in an Ableton Live arrangement.

Instructions

List Arrangement cue points with current inventory IDs and beat positions.

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": {
+      "cuePoints": {
+        "items": {
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "stateVersion": {
+        "minimum": 1,
+        "type": "integer"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "stateVersion",
+      "cuePoints"
+    ],
+    "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 covered. The description adds only that output carries inventory IDs and beat positions — useful, but with an output schema present it is largely redundant and no pagination or scoping behavior is disclosed.

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 (list, cue points, inventory IDs, beat positions) earns its place, and there is nothing to trim.

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?

With an output schema defining the return shape, zero parameters, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent profile, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly. The only shortfall is the absence of any scoping or sibling-routing context.

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 carries no burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is required to explain arguments; there simply are none.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Arrangement cue points') and even names what the listing contains (inventory IDs, beat positions). It is clear what the tool does, but it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the sibling create/rename/delete/jump_to cue-point tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the four sibling cue-point tools (create, rename, delete, jump_to) are never referenced. That this is the read-only enumeration tool is strongly implied by 'List', but an agent gets no routing help.

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