Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by juampicosta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_track

Create new audio, MIDI, or return tracks in Ableton Live. Specify track type, name, insert position, and color for immediate playback arrangement.

Instructions

Create a new track. track_type: 'audio', 'midi', or 'return'. insert_at: position index (-1 = end). color: name ('red','blue','green',...) or integer color ID.

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": "create_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_typeNomidi
nameNo
insert_atNo
colorNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes parameters without mentioning side effects (e.g., adding a track to the session, renumbering, failure conditions) or return value, despite having an output schema.

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 short and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. Parameter details are listed concisely, though formatting could be slightly improved for readability.

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?

The description covers parameters but misses important context such as output schema information, error conditions, project state changes, and prerequisites. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

The description explains three of four parameters (track_type, insert_at, color) with valid values, but omits the 'name' parameter entirely. It adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% coverage), but is incomplete.

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 'Create a new track' and lists the track types (audio, midi, return) and parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_return_track and update_track.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_return_track or update_track. It does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use.

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