Rename a locator by index or name in Ableton Live. To reposition it, delete it and create a new one at the target time.
Rename a locator, addressed by index (time order) or by name. To move one, delete it and create it again at the new time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| locator | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this by making clear the operation only renames and will not relocate an entity, preventing an agent from assuming move/create semantics. It adds useful scope context beyond the annotations, though it omits error behavior on an invalid locator.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and addressing modes, with zero filler. The move workaround is a compact, useful addendum.
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 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers addressing, the rename-only semantic, and the move workaround, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around invalid-target behavior and any auth/precondition requirements.
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 carry the load, and it does: it explains that 'locator' accepts an index (interpreted in time order) or a name, which directly clarifies the anyOf integer/string schema. The 'name' parameter's role as the new name is implied by the rename framing but not spelled out explicitly.
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 and resource ('Rename a locator') and disambiguates the vague tool name 'set_locator' by clarifying it only renames, not moves. It does not name the sibling tools (create_locator/delete_locator) it relates to, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Explains how to address the target (by index in time order, or by name) and gives an explicit alternate workflow for a related task ('To move one, delete it and create it again at the new time'). It provides context without naming the specific alternative tools, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.