Revert an Ableton Live action by planning or applying a guarded operation with state checks, dry-run, and single-use confirmation.
Plan or apply one guarded Ableton undo operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dryRun | No | False executes with token and hash. | |
| planHash | No | Plan hash. | |
| confirmationToken | No | Single-use plan token. | |
| expectedStateVersion | Yes | Observed stateVersion. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / anyOfAdded 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"
+ }
+]v0.3.0Input schema / properties / confirmationToken / descriptionPrevious value: -"Short-lived, single-use token returned by the matching dry run."New value: +"Single-use plan token."Input schema / properties / dryRun / descriptionPrevious value: -"Omit or true to return a plan; false requires a valid confirmationToken."New value: +"False executes with token and hash."Input schema / properties / expectedStateVersion / descriptionPrevious value: -"Exact stateVersion observed immediately before planning."New value: +"Observed stateVersion."Input schema / properties / planHash / descriptionPrevious value: -"Hash returned by the matching dry run."New value: +"Plan hash."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation is 'guarded' and supports planning before applying, but it does not explain what state is undone or the role of the expectedStateVersion guard beyond what the schema already states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, even if the brevity leaves gaps addressed elsewhere.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has rich annotations, an output schema, and 100% parameter description coverage, so much of the context is carried by structured fields. However, for a destructive undo with a plan/apply guard workflow, the description does not explain the two-phase process or what undo affects, leaving a notable gap in operational understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion. The description's 'Plan or apply' vaguely maps to dryRun but adds no further meaning, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Plan or apply') and resource ('one guarded Ableton undo operation'), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `redo` or `get_history_state`, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Plan or apply' hints at two operating modes but gives no conditions for choosing between them. It also does not mention when to use undo versus the sibling `redo` or `get_history_state`, leaving the agent without explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.