AbletonMCP

by chaudepark

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions in Ableton Live, such as clips, tracks, browser items, session playback, and tempo. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tools like fire_clip_tool and stop_clip_tool, or start_playback_tool and stop_playback_tool, making misselection unlikely.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as add_notes_to_clip_tool, create_clip_tool, and get_session_info_tool. This predictable naming convention enhances readability and usability across the entire set.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive music production environment like Ableton Live. It covers essential operations without being excessive, though it borders on the upper limit of typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools).
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides good coverage for core Ableton workflows, including clip and track management, session control, browser navigation, and tempo settings. Minor gaps exist, such as no tools for deleting clips or tracks, but agents can likely work around these with the available creation and info tools.
Average 2.9/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Start playing') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it affects other playback, error conditions (e.g., invalid indices), or what happens if a clip is already playing. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary details.
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?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and usage context, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'track_index' and 'clip_index' mean, their valid ranges, or how they relate to the clip being played. With 2 undocumented parameters, this is a significant gap.
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 states the action ('Start playing') and resource ('a clip'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'clip' means in this context (e.g., audio clip, MIDI clip) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_clip_tool' or 'start_playback_tool', which also involve clip/playback control.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires a clip to exist), exclusions, or how it relates to siblings like 'stop_clip_tool' for stopping clips or 'start_playback_tool' for general playback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Set') without any information about side effects, permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if the track doesn't exist. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's mutation nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The description doesn't explain what 'track_index' represents (e.g., zero-based index, track ID) or constraints on 'name' (e.g., length limits, allowed characters). Baseline is 3 due to only 2 parameters, but minimal value is added.
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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('name of a track'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It's specific about what gets modified (track name) but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_clip_name_tool' or 'set_tempo_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., during playback or editing), or comparison to similar tools like 'set_clip_name_tool', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe what happens to existing notes, whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The description is minimal and lacks crucial behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for such a simple statement and front-loads the core action clearly.
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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured information about behavior, parameters, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so all 3 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'notes' but doesn't explain the 'track_index' or 'clip_index' parameters or provide any details about the structure or format of the 'notes' array. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.
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 clearly states the action ('Add MIDI notes') and target resource ('to a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like 'create_clip_tool' or 'stop_clip_tool', but the verb+resource combination is sufficiently distinct.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing clip), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'create_clip_tool' or 'fire_clip_tool'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a MIDI clip, implying a write operation, but does not cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing clips, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe and effective use.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.
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?
Given the complexity of a write operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, error handling, and return values. For a tool that creates resources in a likely stateful environment like a DAW, this minimal description is insufficient for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'track_index', 'clip_index', or 'length' mean, their valid ranges, or how they interact (e.g., if 'clip_index' refers to a slot in the track). This fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameters ambiguous.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a new MIDI clip') and specifies the target resources ('in the specified track and clip slot'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_midi_track_tool' or 'add_notes_to_clip_tool'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'fire_clip_tool' or 'stop_clip_tool', which also involve clips but with different purposes.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_midi_track_tool' for creating tracks or 'add_notes_to_clip_tool' for modifying existing clips. It lacks context on prerequisites, like whether a track must exist, or exclusions, such as not using it for audio clips. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a MIDI track but doesn't explain what happens if the index is invalid, whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to existing tracks, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part earning its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, one parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral outcomes, error handling, and return values, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has one parameter ('index') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what the index represents (e.g., track position, default behavior) or how it affects the creation process, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a new MIDI track') and the target resource ('in the Ableton session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_clip_tool' or 'set_track_name_tool' that might involve track creation or modification, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'create_clip_tool' or 'set_track_name_tool', nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an open Ableton session. It only states what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get browser items') but doesn't describe what 'items' include (e.g., files, folders, presets), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid path), or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and context (Ableton's browser), making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity (a tool interacting with Ableton's browser), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'a specific path' but doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It doesn't explain the path format (e.g., absolute vs. relative, examples like 'Packs/Drums'), constraints, or what happens if the path doesn't exist. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_browser_tree_tool' by specifying 'at a specific path' rather than the entire tree. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'get_browser_tree_tool' (which might get the full browser structure) or other siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a hierarchical tree but doesn't explain what that entails (e.g., format, depth, permissions, or rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving hierarchical data) and lack of annotations, output schema, or parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter usage, or output details, making it inadequate for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the 'category_type' parameter's purpose or its default value 'all', leaving parameters undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_browser_items_at_path_tool' or 'get_session_info_tool', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_browser_items_at_path_tool' for specific paths or 'get_session_info_tool' for session data. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get detailed information') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling for invalid track indices, performance implications, or what format the information is returned in. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves detailed information, the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'detailed information' includes, how errors are handled, or any dependencies, making it inadequate for the agent to use effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. However, it adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'track_index' represents (e.g., zero-based indexing, valid ranges, or how it relates to Ableton's interface), leaving the parameter semantics unclear.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific track in Ableton', making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_session_info_tool' or 'set_track_name_tool' beyond the general 'track info' focus, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'get_session_info_tool' for track-specific details or mention any prerequisites like needing an open Ableton project, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires an existing track, what happens if the rack_uri or kit_path is invalid, whether this is a destructive operation, or what the expected outcome looks like.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the action.
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?
Given the complexity (a multi-step loading operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, error conditions, and expected results, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no information about the three parameters (track_index, rack_uri, kit_path). It doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their formats, or how they interact, leaving them entirely undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Load a drum rack and then load a specific drum kit into it') with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_instrument_or_effect_tool' by focusing on drum kits specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during session setup), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., success confirmation). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action. It efficiently communicates the purpose without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain behavioral traits, parameter details, or expected results, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool reliably in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'using its URI' for the 'uri' parameter, adding some context, but does not explain 'track_index' (e.g., zero-based indexing, valid range) or provide examples of URIs. This partial compensation is insufficient for full clarity.
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 clearly states the action ('Load') and the target ('an instrument or effect onto a track'), specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_drum_kit_tool' or clarify what types of instruments/effects are supported, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'load_drum_kit_tool' or 'create_midi_track_tool'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., track existence) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a 'Set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens if indices are invalid. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is extremely concise—a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, parameter details, or usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—no clarification on what 'track_index' or 'clip_index' refer to, their valid ranges, or how 'name' is applied. With 3 undocumented parameters, this is inadequate.
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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the target resource ('the name of a clip'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_track_name_tool' or 'create_clip_tool', which would require mentioning it's for renaming existing clips specifically.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing clip), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_clip_tool' or 'set_track_name_tool', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set the tempo' implies a write operation that likely changes the session state, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if the change is immediate or reversible, what happens to playback during the change, or if there are rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error conditions), parameter constraints (e.g., tempo range), and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies session state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
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?
The description mentions 'tempo' as the resource, which aligns with the single parameter 'tempo' in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the tempo parameter (e.g., valid range, units like BPM). The description adds minimal semantic context by implying tempo is a numeric value to set, but it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap with specifics like acceptable values or effects.
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 clearly states the action ('Set') and the resource ('tempo of the Ableton session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_playback_tool' or 'get_session_info_tool' by focusing on tempo modification rather than playback control or information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other tempo-related tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether Ableton must be running), exclusions (e.g., not usable during playback), or related tools for tempo queries. Without any usage context, the agent must infer timing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stop playing') but doesn't mention side effects (e.g., does it mute the clip, remove it, or just pause it?), permissions required, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary details, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a tool that modifies clip state (implied by 'stop'), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address what happens after stopping, potential errors, or how to verify success, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.
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?
The description adds no information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (two required integers: track_index and clip_index). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the baseline is low, but the description doesn't compensate by explaining what these indices mean or how to determine them, resulting in a minimal viable score.
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 'Stop playing a clip' clearly states the verb ('stop') and resource ('clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'stop_playback_tool' or 'fire_clip_tool', which might have related functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for stopping a specific clip versus general playback (as in 'stop_playback_tool'), or if there are prerequisites like the clip needing to be currently playing. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop playing' implies a mutation action, it lacks details on effects (e.g., whether it halts all tracks, resets playback position, or requires specific permissions). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'Stop'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens post-stop, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('playing the Ableton session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_playback_tool' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other stop-related tools like 'stop_clip_tool'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires playback to be active), exclusions, or clarify differences from similar tools like 'stop_clip_tool' or 'fire_clip_tool' that might affect playback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this or address other traits like error handling, performance impact, or data format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly supporting tool understanding.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate as a basic read operation. However, it lacks details on what 'detailed information' includes, which could be crucial for an agent to decide if this tool meets its needs. Without annotations or output schema, more context on return values would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about the current Ableton session'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_track_info_tool' by focusing on session-level information rather than track-specific details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires an open session), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'get_track_info_tool' for more granular data. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent guessing about optimal usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'start playing' entails—whether it begins playback from the current position, requires specific permissions, affects other playback controls, or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that initiates a core session function.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but omits behavioral details like playback behavior, error conditions, or interaction with other tools, which are important for a playback control function in a music production context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing solely on the tool's action, which aligns well with the schema's completeness.
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 clearly states the action ('Start playing') and the target resource ('the Ableton session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'stop_playback_tool' beyond the opposite action, which would require explicit comparison for a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fire_clip_tool' or 'stop_playback_tool', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a loaded session or being in a specific playback state. It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chaudepark/ableton-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chaudepark/ableton-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chaudepark/ableton-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chaudepark/ableton-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chaudepark/ableton-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server