Skip to main content
Glama
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

load_track_state_snapshot

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a saved local track-state snapshot for review and guarded recall onto an already compatible Live track without mutating the session.

Instructions

Read a previously saved local track-state JSON capture for review and explicit guarded recall onto an already compatible track. Does not mutate Live.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExact saved snapshot name.

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": {
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "path": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "snapshot": {
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "name",
+      "path",
+      "snapshot"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false; 'Does not mutate Live' largely restates that. The genuinely additive context is that the source is a local JSON capture and that recall is guarded and requires a compatible track — useful but thin given the safety profile is already structured.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the non-mutation guarantee. Slightly dense phrasing ('explicit guarded recall onto an already compatible track') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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 present, return values needn't be described, and the read-only/local-file/compatible-track prerequisites are stated. Only the relationship to the recall and save siblings is left unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Exact saved snapshot name'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description's 'previously saved' wording mildly reinforces that the name must refer to an existing capture, but adds no format or discovery guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — read a previously saved local track-state JSON capture — and scopes it to review plus guarded recall. It stops short of naming the sibling that performs the actual recall (recall_track_state_snapshot), so the read-vs-recall boundary is inferable but not explicit.

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?

It implies the tool is for review/inspection and adds a prerequisite that recall requires an 'already compatible track', which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over recall_track_state_snapshot or list_saved_snapshots, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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