ableton-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_track_send_db

Destructive

Set a track-to-Return send level in dB or to its verified silent minimum while validating track, send, Return, state, and automation before applying guarded changes.

Instructions

Set one track-to-Return send in native dB or to its verified silent minimum. Rechecks track, send and Return identity, current value and automation. Refuses recording, frozen or disabled sends and unsupported levels.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	False executes with token and hash.
`sendDb`	Yes	Absolute finite dB target, or -inf for the native verified silent minimum; no clamping.
`sendId`	Yes	Canonical send-N ID from get_track_mixer.
`trackId`	Yes	ID from list_tracks.
`planHash`	No	Plan hash.
`returnTrackId`	Yes	Matching return-N ID from the selected send record.
`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"
+  }
+]

Addedv0.3.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructive annotation, the description discloses important preconditions and failure modes: it rechecks track, send, and Return identity plus current value and automation, and refuses invalid send states. It does not describe the confirmation-token or dry-run execution flow, but the annotations already establish the destructive mutation profile.

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?

Three compact sentences, each carrying useful information, with the core purpose front-loaded. No sentence is redundant or 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 destructive mixer mutation, the description covers purpose, identity checks, safety refusals, and supported level semantics. With a rich schema and an output schema present, the remaining details such as token and dry-run workflow are adequately handled by structured fields, though mentioning them would improve completeness.

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 parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of the dB target and silent minimum, but adds little parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: setting one track-to-Return send level in dB or to its verified silent minimum. The phrase 'track-to-Return send' clearly distinguishes this operation from track volume, return mixer level, and other mixer-related siblings.

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 clear usage context and explicit exclusions, noting that recording, frozen, disabled, and unsupported sends are refused. It does not name adjacent alternatives such as set_track_mixer or set_return_mixer, so it falls short of full when-to-use/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server