Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by juampicosta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

analyze_wav_file_tool

Analyze WAV files for loudness, dynamics, frequency balance, and stereo width to receive mixing suggestions.

Instructions

Analyze a WAV file for: RMS, peak, LUFS, dynamic range, frequency balance, stereo width, and crest factor. Returns mixing suggestions.

file_path: absolute path to a WAV file (captured from Ableton or exported)

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_wav_file_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
track_nameNoAudio

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description bears the burden. It mentions the output (metrics and mixing suggestions) but does not state side effects (e.g., read-only nature, no modifications). Could be more transparent about being non-destructive.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. Front-loads purpose and lists key metrics, then explains file_path parameter. Every word is earned.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given output schema existence (not shown), description need not detail return values but mentions 'returns mixing suggestions' which helps. Missing explanation of track_name parameter leaves a gap, but overall sufficient for a simple analysis tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It explains file_path as 'absolute path to a WAV file' with context, but does not describe track_name (default 'Audio'). Only one of two parameters is clarified.

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 it analyzes a WAV file for specific metrics (RMS, peak, LUFS, etc.) and returns mixing suggestions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_track' (likely analyzes in-session tracks) and 'analyze_mix' (overall mix analysis).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It provides some context (file_path must be a WAV file from Ableton or exported), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like 'analyze_track' or 'mastering_analysis'. No exclusions or when-not guidance.

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