Modifies existing notes in an Ableton Live 12 clip by matching note ID or pitch, updating pitch, timing, velocity, duration, probability, and mute states.
Modifies existing notes in an Ableton Live 12 clip (Clip.apply_note_modifications) by matching note_id or pitch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot_index | Yes | Zero-based clip slot index. | |
| track_index | Yes | Zero-based track index. | |
| note_modifications | Yes | List of modifications to apply. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that notes are matched by note_id or pitch, but does not explain what happens when no note matches, when multiple notes share a pitch, whether modifications are partial, or what the operation returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It states the action, target, and matching mechanism without burying the key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. The schema documents the fields, but the description does not clarify matching semantics, partial-update behavior, error cases, or the fact that multiple notes may be affected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the three parameters and nested modification fields. The description adds only the high-level matching rule (note_id or pitch), which is already reflected in the schema's pitch and note_id descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: modifying existing notes in an Ableton Live 12 clip. It also identifies the selection mechanism (note_id or pitch), making the operation distinguishable from note creation or deletion, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as live12_clip_transform_midi.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'existing notes' implies this tool is for updates rather than inserting or removing notes, and the matching mechanism gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools like live12_clip_transform_midi, live12_clip_add_notes, or live12_clip_remove_notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.