ableton-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rename_arrangement_cue_point

Destructive

Rename a specific Arrangement cue point in Ableton Live. Plan with a dry run or execute using a confirmation token and state version.

Instructions

Plan or rename one exact Arrangement cue point.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	New cue-point name.
`dryRun`	No	False executes with token and hash.
`planHash`	No	Plan hash.
`cuePointId`	Yes	Current cue-point ID from list_arrangement_cue_points.
`confirmationToken`	No	Single-use plan token.
`expectedStateVersion`	Yes	Observed stateVersion.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1Oct 23, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "oneOf": [
+      {
+        "properties": {
+          "confirmation": {
+            "properties": {
+              "expiresAt": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "planHash": {
+                "pattern": "^[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "token": {
+                "minLength": 1,
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "token",
+              "planHash",
+              "expiresAt"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "dryRun": {
+            "const": true
+          },
+          "plan": {
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "dryRun",
+          "plan",
+          "confirmation"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      {
+        "properties": {
+          "dryRun": {
+            "const": false
+          },
+          "operationOutcome": {
+            "properties": {
+              "evidence": {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              "reason": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "schemaVersion": {
+                "const": 1
+              },
+              "status": {
+                "enum": [
+                  "applied",
+                  "outcome_unknown",
+                  "postconditions_failed",
+                  "pending_postconditions",
+                  "pending_user_action"
+                ]
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "schemaVersion",
+              "status",
+              "reason",
+              "evidence"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "dryRun",
+          "operationOutcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ],
+    "properties": {
+      "dryRun": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "dryRun"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "properties": {
+      "error": {
+        "properties": {
+          "message": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "outcome": {
+            "enum": [
+              "unknown",
+              "not_executed"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "message",
+          "outcome"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+]

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / confirmationToken / description

Previous value: -"Short-lived, single-use token returned by the matching dry run."New value: +"Single-use plan token."

changedInput schema / properties / cuePointId / description

Previous value: -"Stable cue-point ID."New value: +"Current cue-point ID from list_arrangement_cue_points."

changedInput schema / properties / dryRun / description

Previous value: -"Omit or true to return a plan; false requires a valid confirmationToken."New value: +"False executes with token and hash."

changedInput schema / properties / expectedStateVersion / description

Previous value: -"Exact stateVersion observed immediately before planning."New value: +"Observed stateVersion."

changedInput schema / properties / planHash / description

Previous value: -"Hash returned by the matching dry run."New value: +"Plan hash."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotence, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — it does not explain what the destructive action affects, nor that the operation is gated behind a plan hash and single-use confirmation token.

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?

A single short sentence with the key operation front-loaded and no waste. It is arguably over-terse, but it is structurally sound.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, confirmation-gated mutation with six parameters, the description omits the critical call sequence (dry run to obtain plan hash and token, then execute). Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks the workflow context needed to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters (including dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken) are documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about how these parameters interact, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a verb (rename) and a resource (Arrangement cue point), so the operation is identifiable. However, 'Plan or rename' is ambiguous and it makes no attempt to differentiate from siblings such as create_arrangement_cue_point, delete_arrangement_cue_point, or jump_to_arrangement_cue_point, which share the same resource.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no indication of when to use this versus the other cue-point siblings, nor any prerequisite guidance. The two-phase plan-then-execute intent hinted by 'Plan or' is never explained, leaving the agent to infer the workflow from the schema alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server