Skip to main content
Glama

rename_rack_macro

Destructive

Rename one specific Ableton Live rack macro after checking the rack snapshot and macro layout, then verify the written name and state. Use for guarded, exact macro naming.

Instructions

Plan or rename one exact rack macro when Live exposes an unambiguous macro parameter layout and name readback. Rechecks the full rack snapshot and confirms the observed name after the native write.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew macro name.
dryRunNoFalse executes with token and hash.
trackIdYestrack-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master.
deviceIdYesID from list_devices.
planHashNoPlan hash.
macroIndexYesZero-based visible rack macro index.
confirmationTokenNoSingle-use plan token.
expectedStateVersionYesObserved stateVersion.

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: +[
      +  {
      +    "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"
      +  }
      +]
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • 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 / deviceId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable device ID returned by list_devices."New value: +"ID from list_devices."
    • 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / trackId / description
      Previous value: -"Stable device-owner ID: track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."New value: +"track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it rechecks the full rack snapshot and confirms the observed name after the native write, signalling a verification step. It could say more about dry-run versus execution behavior, but the core post-write verification 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?

Two tightly packed sentences with no wasted language. The precondition is front-loaded before the post-write verification detail, making the description easy to scan.

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?

The tool has annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or every parameter. It adequately covers the precondition and the post-write confirmation behavior. It could be slightly more complete about safe planning versus execution, but the key context is present.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters including expectedStateVersion, planHash, confirmationToken, and dryRun. The description only implies the macro index and name are relevant; it does not add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Plan or rename one exact rack macro.' It also adds a meaningful precondition about Live exposing an unambiguous macro layout and name readback, which helps scope the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rename_rack_chain or map_rack_macro_to_parameter, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use condition: only when Live exposes an unambiguous macro parameter layout and name readback. That is useful context an agent can check before invoking. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for ambiguous cases.

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