Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by juampicosta
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_clip

Update clip properties for MIDI and audio clips in Ableton Live, including name, loop start/end, loop enable, warping, and gain (audio only).

Instructions

Update clip properties. Works for both MIDI and audio clips. loop_start/loop_end: in beats. gain: 0.0–1.0 (audio clips only).

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes
slot_indexYes
nameNo
loop_startNo
loop_endNo
loop_enabledNo
warpingNo
gainNo

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 are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that gain applies only to audio clips, but does not mention other behaviors like validation of loop points, error handling, or whether unspecified properties remain unchanged.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds context about clip type, and the third provides parameter details. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (so return values not needed), the description covers some key parameter constraints but omits explanations for other parameters and potential side effects. It is moderately complete but leaves gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning for loop_start/loop_end (in beats) and gain (0.0–1.0, audio only), but does not explain other parameters like name, loop_enabled, warping, or the required track_index and slot_index.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'clip properties', and distinguishes from create/delete tools. It also specifies that it works for both MIDI and audio clips.

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?

The description implies usage for updating clip properties but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like create_clip or delete_clip. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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