Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ableton-mcp

ableton-mcp

by fuzzwin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ableton_parameters

Read-only

Page a device's parameters with native value bounds using offset and limit (1–512) to inspect specific parameter ranges in Ableton Live.

Instructions

Page a device's parameters with native value bounds. Limit 1..512.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track": "<track>",
      "device": "<device>"
    },
    "name": "ableton_parameters"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
trackYes
deviceYes
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that returned values carry native bounds and that results are paginated, but says nothing about ordering or what a page contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and the range constraint; nothing is padded. It is borderline telegraphic, trading a little clarity for compactness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally serviceable but leaves key gaps: identifier semantics for track/device, pagination ordering, and what fields each parameter entry returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully supplies the limit range 1..512, which the schema lacks, and 'page' implies offset semantics, but it never explains what track and device identifiers are or what offset is measured in.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: pages a device's parameters, which is distinguishable from siblings like ableton_tracks and ableton_clip. 'With native value bounds' hints at return content but is compressed enough to be slightly cryptic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to reach for this versus ableton_inspect_set or ableton_capabilities, and no prerequisites stated. The only guidance is the limit range, which is a constraint rather than usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools