Press the button on an open Ableton Live 12 modal dialog to confirm with index 0 or cancel with index 1, resolving blocking prompts in automated workflows.
Presses a button on the currently open modal dialog in Ableton Live 12 (Application.press_current_dialog_button). 0 is typically OK / Confirm; 1 is Cancel / Secondary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| button_index | Yes | Zero-based button index to press (0=default/OK, 1=cancel). |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the button index mapping, but it does not describe what happens if no modal dialog is open, whether pressing a button commits or cancels an operation, or any side effects or error behavior.
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 description is two short sentences, front-loads the action and target, and includes only useful context about button indices. There is no wasted text.
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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the core call semantics adequately. However, because there are no annotations, it should say more about dialog prerequisites, failure behavior, and the relationship to live12_dialog_inspect.
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 already documents button_index clearly. The description repeats the 0=OK and 1=Cancel mapping with 'typically' and 'Secondary,' but adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: pressing a button on the currently open modal dialog in Ableton Live 12, with the underlying method named. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling live12_dialog_inspect, which an agent might need to inspect dialog buttons first.
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 'currently open modal dialog' implies the usage context, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus live12_dialog_inspect or what to do if no dialog is open. Usage is inferable rather than directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.