Restore actions previously undone in Ableton Live, up to 100 steps, and report how many were restored plus whether further undo or reapply actions are possible. New changes clear the history.
Redo steps actions previously undone with undo (1..100). Returns how many were redone plus
can_undo and can_redo. Any new change clears the redo history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: the return shape (count redone plus can_undo/can_redo) and the stateful rule that 'any new change clears the redo history'. It omits error/permission behavior, keeping it from a 5.
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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded before the return-value and history-reset details. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-optional-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return contract, the range, and the stateful caveat, so it is nearly self-sufficient. Minor gaps remain around error cases and default behavior.
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 coverage is 0% (the `steps` param has only a title and default 1), so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines steps as the count of previously-undone actions and gives the valid range 1..100. It does not explain out-of-range or interaction with the default, keeping it below a 5.
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?
States a specific verb (redo) and resource (steps actions), scopes it to actions 'previously undone with undo', and thereby distinguishes itself from its sibling `undo`. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening 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 anchors usage to the `undo` sibling ('actions previously undone with undo') and gives an implicit when-to-use cue via redo-history semantics. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it or naming `undo` as the alternative in a routing sense, so it is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.