Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by juampicosta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_automation_points

Add breakpoints to automation envelopes in Ableton Live tracks to fine-tune parameter changes over time.

Instructions

Add breakpoints to an existing automation envelope. points: [{"time": 0.0, "value": 0.5, "duration": 0.0}, ...]

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_index": "<track_index>",
      "slot_index": "<slot_index>",
      "envelope_index": "<envelope_index>",
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "add_automation_points"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes
slot_indexYes
envelope_indexYes
pointsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided; the description does not disclose important behavioral traits such as what happens if the envelope does not exist, whether points are added to existing ones or overwrite, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, but the lack of additional context keeps it from being optimally concise; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no annotations, no behavioral details, and an output schema present but not described, the description is incomplete for effective tool use, especially regarding prerequisites, side effects, and return values.

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%; the description only provides an example for the 'points' parameter but does not explain track_index, slot_index, envelope_index, leaving their roles ambiguous.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Add breakpoints') and the resource ('existing automation envelope'), with a concise example of input format, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_automation_point or create_automation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_automation for creating a new envelope, remove_automation_point for deleting points). The description implies usage only through the tool name.

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