Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by juampicosta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_device_to_return

Add a plugin or device to a return track to apply shared effects like reverb or delay across multiple tracks.

Instructions

Add a plugin/device to a return track. Use return tracks for shared effects (reverb, delay) that multiple tracks send to.

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": {
      "return_index": "<return_index>",
      "device_name": "<device_name>"
    },
    "name": "add_device_to_return"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
return_indexYes
device_nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description only briefly mentions adding a device but fails to disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or constraints like permission needs or undo capabilities.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words, directly conveying the tool's core action and use case.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional knowledge.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description does not explain the parameters: 'return_index' (e.g., zero-based? range?) and 'device_name' (e.g., exact string? allowed devices?), leaving the agent without essential usage details.

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 'Add a plugin/device to a return track' and explains the purpose of return tracks, distinguishing it from similar tools like add_device.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides context on when to use return tracks (for shared effects), implying this tool is for those cases, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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