Load an audio sample into Ableton Live by creating a new audio track or using an existing track, placing the clip into the desired slot for mixing and reference.
Put an audio file into Live: a new audio track (or track) gets a clip
in slot with the sample. Logged like any other change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| slot | No | ||
| track | No |
| 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 behavioral burden. It does disclose that the action mutates Live by creating a track/clip and that the change is logged like other changes, which is useful context. However, it does not mention validation behavior, what happens when track is null vs specified, or any file-related constraints.
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. It communicates the action, the target context, and the logging behavior without wasted words or redundant schema repetition.
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 is simple and has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not needed. Still, the description omits preconditions, track-creation behavior, and slot bound expectations. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding how to call it safely.
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. It explains the roles of 'track' and 'slot' in broad terms, but leaves 'path' and the null/default semantics of track underspecified. The agent still has to infer key parameter meaning from names alone.
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 ('Put an audio file into Live') and clearly states the resulting state: a track gets a clip in the given slot. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_reference or find_kicks without needing to open the schema.
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 description implies the use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as add_reference or samples. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing cues beyond the general action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.