Skip to main content
Glama
cavi-ai

ableton-mcp

by cavi-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

set_device_active

Enable or disable a specific device on any track by planning the change and then confirming it with a short-lived token.

Instructions

Plan or set the active state of one exact loaded device on an ordinary, Return, or Main track.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activeYesRequested active state.
dryRunNoOmit or true to return a plan; false requires a valid confirmationToken.
trackIdYesStable device-owner ID: track-N from list_tracks, return-N from get_set_mixer, or master.
deviceIdYesStable device ID returned by list_devices.
planHashNoHash returned by the matching dry run.
confirmationTokenNoShort-lived, single-use token returned by the matching dry run.
expectedStateVersionYesExact stateVersion observed immediately before planning.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the plan-versus-set nuance, but it does not disclose the confirmation-token requirement, the expectedStateVersion guard, or that planning is side-effect-free.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the key behavior appears immediately.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter, two-phase plan/commit mutation tool, the description is terse. The schema compensates by fully explaining dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken, but the prose alone does not walk an agent through the required call sequence.

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 parameter descriptions already carry the semantic weight. The prose adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the device scope.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Plan or set') and exact resource ('active state of one exact loaded device'), scoped to ordinary, Return, or Main tracks. This clearly distinguishes it from related device tools like set_device_parameters or move_device.

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?

Provides clear context: use this tool to plan or change the active state of an already loaded device. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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