Skip to main content
Glama
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

record_production_note

Idempotent

Store explicit user intent or feedback as a private immutable note, then reuse it in later tasks by referencing its artifact ID.

Instructions

Store explicit user intent or feedback as a private immutable artifact. Supply its noteRef in later task contextRefs to reuse it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
textYesUser intent or feedback; do not label preferences as observed Live facts.
projectIdYesPrivate project namespace.
contextRefsNo

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": {
+      "noteRef": {
+        "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "noteRef"
+    ],
+    "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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by calling the stored artifact "private" and "immutable" and by explaining the noteRef/contextRefs reuse mechanism. It stops short of permission or project-existence requirements, but is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the reuse instruction. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

For a modest four-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, artifact privacy/immutability, and how the returned reference is reused. It omits only minor operational details such as projectId preconditions and the meaning of the kind enum, which are partly inferable from the schema.

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 50%, so the description must compensate for some undocumented parameters. It does add valuable semantic linkage by explaining that the returned noteRef should be supplied in later contextRefs, but it does not clarify projectId, the intent/feedback enum choice, or the text constraints beyond the schema.

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 ("Store") and resource ("explicit user intent or feedback") with the key qualifier that it is a "private immutable artifact". This is clear and distinguishable from read/session siblings, but it does not name any sibling alternative or contrast case explicitly.

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?

The phrase "Supply its noteRef in later task contextRefs to reuse it" gives useful follow-on usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use contrast against nearby tools such as read_production_artifact or run_production_task, so the usage boundary is only implied.

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