Moves an approved Vital bass patch into Ableton Live, loading it as an AU preset on the Sublevel Bass track with a 4-beat clip at the root note.
Put a designed Vital candidate into Live: written as an AU preset, loaded
onto the "Sublevel Bass" track (or track) with a 4-beat clip at the root note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | No | ||
| candidate_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose concrete behavioral effects: the candidate is written as an AU preset, loaded onto 'Sublevel Bass' or the supplied track, and a clip is created. However, it does not disclose potential overwrites of existing clips, preset file locations, undo behavior, or whether other session state is affected.
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 dense sentence with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded and the key scoping constraints ('Sublevel Bass' track, clip length, root note) are included without redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. Still, there are no annotations, no prerequisites, and no statement about whether the action overwrites prior delivery work or can be undone. For a mutation tool in a larger workflow, this leaves some gaps the agent must infer.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does add meaning by identifying candidate_id as the designed Vital candidate and `track` as an override for the default 'Sublevel Bass' track. It does not explain how to obtain candidate_id, expected ID format, or track semantics beyond the schema titles, so it only partially compensates.
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 uses a specific action verb ('Put... into Live') and names the exact resource and outcome format ('designed Vital candidate', 'AU preset', 'Sublevel Bass' track, 4-beat clip at root note). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling design and placement tools without needing schema inspection.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use deliver_patch versus siblings such as design_bass, apply, or place_sample. The description implies it is a delivery/finalization step but gives no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.