Activates or bypasses a device on a specified track and device index in Ableton Live 12, controlling whether that device processes audio or MIDI.
Enables or disables (bypasses) a device on a track in Ableton Live 12.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | True to activate the device; False to bypass/disable. | |
| track_index | Yes | Zero-based track index. | |
| device_index | Yes | Zero-based device index. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavior burden. It says it toggles state but not that it is an immediate mutation of live set state, whether it's undoable, what happens with out-of-range indices, or whether the effect is audible in real time.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its weakness is under-specification, not verbosity, so conciseness is not penalized here.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: no return info, no error behavior for invalid indices, no note that state changes persist in the set or how to verify the result.
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 coverage is 100% and documents all three parameters including the zero-based indexing and the true/false meaning. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb pair (enables/disables, i.e. bypasses), the resource (a device on a track), and the host app (Ableton Live 12). It is clearly distinct from list/get_parameters siblings, though it doesn't distinguish itself from live12_device_set_parameter, which could plausibly set the same 'enabled' flag.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus live12_device_set_parameter or live12_device_list. No stated prerequisites such as an existing track/device index or the need to query devices first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.