Modify an Ableton Live scene's name, color, tempo, or time signature. Pass 'off' for tempo or meter to inherit the song's settings.
Change a scene (index or name): name, color (0..69 or "#RRGGBB"), tempo in BPM, time_signature ("7/8"). Pass tempo="off" or time_signature="off" so the scene keeps the song's tempo or meter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| scene | Yes | ||
| tempo | No | ||
| time_signature | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful semantics (color range, '$RRGGBB' format, BPM units, 'off' keeping song tempo/meter) but says nothing about permissions, what happens to omitted attributes, or the response.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then formats, then the sentinel rule. No filler.
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 an idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies all the argument semantics an agent needs. It omits prerequisites, return shape, and omitting-a-field behavior, but those are minor against the rest.
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% with 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden — and it does: scene accepts index or name, color accepts 0..69 or hex, tempo is in BPM, time_signature uses '7/8' form, plus the 'off' sentinel for tempo/time_signature. Only 'name' is left implicit.
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 (Change) and resource (a scene), keyed by index or name, and enumerates the mutable attributes. It is clear enough to distinguish from create_scene/delete_scene/fire_scene, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the mutation verb and the 'off' sentinel semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against siblings like set_song or create_scene. The 'off' hint is the only real behavioral guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.