Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ableton-mcp

ableton-mcp

by fuzzwin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ableton_tracks

Read-only

Pages through Ableton Live tracks and top-level device names, using offset and limit to fetch batches for inspection.

Instructions

Page tracks and top-level device names. Limit 1..128.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ableton_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing that only top-level device names are surfaced (not deep device trees) and the hard limit ceiling of 128 — a bound the schema doesn't state. It says nothing about ordering, total count, or what a page entry looks like.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the numeric constraint. No filler, though the phrasing "Page tracks and top-level device names" is terse to the point of ambiguity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description is responsible for conveying the return shape, and it doesn't — the agent cannot tell whether the result is a list of track names, track objects with device arrays, or a flat name list. For a paginated listing tool with zero schema coverage and two undocumented parameters, it does too little.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It supplies the limit range 1..128, which is genuinely new information not present in the schema, but offset is never mentioned — the agent must guess that offset is a zero-based page skip. Half the parameters remain unexplained.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Page tracks and top-level device names" gives a weak verb ("page" as a verb) plus a resource, so an agent can infer this is a paginated listing of Live Set tracks. But it does not discriminate from siblings like ableton_clip or ableton_inspect_set, and it is unclear whether it returns tracks, device names, or both together.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus ableton_clip, ableton_inspect_set, or ableton_parameters. The only constraint given is a numeric bound, not a usage condition or prerequisite.

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