Set a writable property on an object at a specified path in Ableton Live. Use a path reference as the value to target another object.
Set a writable property of the object at path. Pass {"path": "..."} as value to refer to an object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| property | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the target property must be writable and that value can be a reference object using {"path": "..."}, which is useful context but does not describe side effects, persistence, or undo behavior.
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?
Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence conveys an important special case efficiently.
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?
For a generic LOM setter in a large sibling toolset, the description lacks guidance on choosing it over specific setters and does not mention how to discover valid paths or properties (e.g., via lom_describe). Annotations cover safety, but parameter coverage and routing context remain incomplete.
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 for all three parameters. It names path, property, and value, and explains one special value format, but does not clarify path syntax, property naming conventions, or expected value types, leaving substantial gaps.
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 (Set) and resource (a writable property of the object at path), distinguishing it from lom_get and lom_call. It does not explicitly differentiate from specific setters like set_track or set_scene, but the core action is clear.
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 given on when to use lom_set versus alternatives such as set_song, set_track, or lom_call. The only extra sentence concerns value syntax, not tool selection or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.