Ableton MCP Extended

by kevinzhang03

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as create_clip vs. add_notes_to_clip, but there is some potential overlap between fire_clip and start_playback, as both initiate playback in different contexts. The descriptions clarify that fire_clip targets specific clips while start_playback controls the entire session, but an agent might occasionally confuse them without careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as create_clip, get_session_info, and set_tempo. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions across the 16 tools.
Tool Count4/5
With 16 tools, the server is slightly on the heavier side but remains reasonable for controlling an Ableton session, covering essential operations like clip management, track creation, and playback control. It avoids being overwhelming while providing comprehensive functionality, though it could be streamlined by merging closely related tools like start_playback and stop_playback into a single toggle.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key aspects of Ableton control, including clip and track manipulation, browser navigation, and session playback, but has minor gaps such as missing update or delete operations for clips or tracks. Agents can work around these omissions by combining existing tools, but the lack of direct modification tools may limit efficiency in some workflows.
Average 3.2/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't clarify whether this appends to existing notes or replaces them, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description mentions the parameters but doesn't explain the tool's actual behavior beyond the basic action.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose - the first establishes the tool's function, and the parameter list provides necessary context. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters, though could benefit from slightly more behavioral context.
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 that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values), and the tool has moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about how the addition works and any constraints or side effects.
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 lists all three parameters and provides some semantic context for 'notes' (specifying it's a list of note dictionaries with specific fields). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation - it doesn't explain valid ranges for indices, note field data types, or constraints. The parameter information is helpful but incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add MIDI notes') and target resource ('to a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_clip' or 'fire_clip' by focusing specifically on note addition rather than clip creation or triggering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential note-related operations that might exist in the broader context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must already exist), nor does it suggest when other tools like 'create_clip' might be needed first. There's no indication of error conditions or constraints beyond what's implied by the parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Start playing a clip') but doesn't explain what happens if the clip is already playing, whether this affects other clips or playback, error conditions, or the expected outcome. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter section could be more integrated (e.g., explaining indices in context) rather than a bulleted list, slightly reducing efficiency.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more completeness is needed for a playback tool.
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 lists the parameters ('track_index' and 'clip_index') and their roles, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema titles ('Track Index', 'Clip Index') imply. It fails to explain what these indices represent (e.g., zero-based, range constraints) or how they relate to the system, offering only basic identification without deeper context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start playing a clip') and identifies the resource ('a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'start_playback' or 'stop_clip', which also involve playback control, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_playback' (for overall playback) or 'stop_clip' (for stopping clips). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must exist or be loaded) or typical scenarios for firing clips, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or address other behavioral aspects like error handling, performance, or what 'detailed information' entails. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic operation.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one listing parameters. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, though the parameter listing could be integrated more seamlessly. There's no wasted text.
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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema exists (which likely describes the return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and a simple but critical operation, it lacks context on error cases (e.g., invalid index) or behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 explicitly lists the parameter 'track_index' and explains it as 'The index of the track to get information about', adding meaning beyond the schema's title 'Track Index' and type 'integer'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates adequately, but doesn't provide additional details like valid ranges or indexing conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific track in Ableton'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_info' or 'get_browser_items_at_path', which also retrieve information but about different resources.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states the action ('Set the tempo') but does not describe effects (e.g., immediate change, impact on playback), permissions needed, or error conditions (e.g., invalid BPM range). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action, though the parameter explanation could be integrated more smoothly. There is minimal waste, but it lacks structural polish.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details and usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'tempo' as 'The new tempo in BPM', clarifying the parameter's purpose and unit. However, it does not provide details like valid ranges or constraints, leaving gaps despite the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('tempo of the Ableton session'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_playback' or 'stop_playback' that might also affect tempo indirectly, so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be open), exclusions (e.g., cannot set tempo during playback), or related tools (e.g., 'get_session_info' to check current tempo), leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a MIDI track but doesn't mention what happens after creation (e.g., whether it becomes active, default settings, or if it requires specific permissions). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though the parameter explanation could be slightly more integrated into the flow.
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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is moderately complete. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention more about behavioral implications like side effects or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'index', explaining that '-1 = end of list' which clarifies the default behavior beyond what the schema provides (schema coverage is 0%). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid indices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new MIDI track') and the target resource ('in the Ableton session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_clip' or 'set_track_name', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_clip' or 'set_track_name', leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states the tool 'Get's data, implying a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or whether it's safe or destructive. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose followed by parameter details in a bulleted list. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage guidance, but overall it's concise and well-organized.
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 the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is mitigated. However, for a tool with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage and only lists 'category_type' with a default. It explains that 'category_type' specifies 'Type of categories to get' and provides an enum list ('all', 'instruments', etc.), giving clear context for parameter usage. With only 1 parameter and schema coverage low, the description effectively compensates by detailing the parameter's purpose and options.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton', which specifies what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_browser_items_at_path' by focusing on categories rather than items, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated from its sibling.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a parameter for category types but doesn't explain when to choose specific types or contrast with sibling tools like 'get_browser_items_at_path'. There's implied usage through the parameter list, but no explicit when/when-not instructions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set the name') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., affecting linked clips), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse.
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 the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics but lacks behavioral context and detailed parameter guidance, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe invocation.
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 lists both parameters ('track_index' and 'name') with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't clarify parameter constraints (e.g., valid index ranges, name length limits) or provide examples, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('name of a track'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_clip_name' or 'set_tempo', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during playback or editing), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what constitutes 'detailed information,' whether there are any side effects, or what format the information is returned in. The description is too vague about the actual behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool and is perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.
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?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete. While the output schema will document return values, the description doesn't provide enough context about what 'detailed information' includes or how this tool fits within the Ableton tool ecosystem alongside sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('current Ableton session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_track_info' or 'get_browser_tree' that also retrieve information from the Ableton environment.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention what information is returned, when this tool is appropriate, or how it differs from sibling information-retrieval tools like 'get_track_info' or 'get_browser_items_at_path'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states the tool loads items but doesn't cover critical traits like whether this is a read/write operation, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content), error handling, or response format. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral details.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured parameter list with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for a tool that likely involves session modifications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters with examples (e.g., 'rack_uri: The URI of the drum rack to load (e.g., 'Drums/Drum Rack')'). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by clarifying what each parameter represents and providing sample values, though it could detail constraints or formats further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('load a drum rack' and 'load a specific drum kit into it') and identifies the resource (drum rack and drum kit). It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_instrument_or_effect' by specifying drum-related operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'load_instrument_or_effect' or other drum/session management tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., track existence) or exclusions, offering only basic parameter explanations without usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, error handling, or side effects (e.g., if loading replaces existing content). This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear, bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 that there is an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool that likely involves mutation (loading onto a track), it lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and integration with sibling tools, making it minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'track_index' is explained as 'the index of the track to load the instrument on', and 'uri' includes an example format. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by clarifying parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on valid ranges or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Load an instrument or effect') and the target ('onto a track using its URI'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'load_drum_kit', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses the top score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'load_drum_kit' or other track-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios, offering only basic parameter explanations without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set') but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, error conditions, or what the output schema returns. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every element adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important context about behavioral traits (e.g., whether changes are reversible, error handling) that would be needed for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters ('track_index', 'clip_index', 'name') that go beyond the schema's basic titles. With 0% schema description coverage, this effectively compensates by explaining what each parameter represents, though it doesn't specify format constraints like valid index ranges.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('name of a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_track_name' or 'create_clip', but the specificity of 'clip name' versus 'track name' provides implicit distinction.
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing clips), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_clip' or 'set_track_name', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Start playing' implies a state-changing action, it doesn't describe what happens (does it start from beginning? current position?), whether it requires specific conditions (session loaded), or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.
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 this is a state-changing tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks important behavioral context about prerequisites, effects, and relationships to other tools. The existence of an output schema helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing usage guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully documents the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start playing') and the target resource ('the Ableton session'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'stop_playback' or explain the relationship between starting and stopping playback, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a session loaded), when not to use it (if already playing), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'stop_playback' or 'fire_clip'. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. While 'Stop playing' implies a mutation action, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the clip isn't playing, or any side effects (e.g., does it reset clip position?). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.
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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, side effects) to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists both parameters ('track_index' and 'clip_index') and explains their purpose ('The index of the track containing the clip', 'The index of the clip slot containing the clip'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop playing') and the target resource ('a clip'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'stop_playback' or 'fire_clip', which might have related functionality in a music/DAW context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a clip must be playing first), exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'stop_playback' (which might stop overall playback) or 'fire_clip' (which might start clips).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing clips, error conditions (e.g., invalid indices), or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the need to explain returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly lists and briefly explains all three parameters ('track_index', 'clip_index', 'length'), adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'length' is in beats with a default value, which compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid index ranges or unit specifics beyond 'beats'.
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 specific action ('Create a new MIDI clip') and the target resources ('in the specified track and clip slot'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_midi_track' (which creates tracks) or 'add_notes_to_clip' (which modifies existing clips). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the track must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for audio clips), or comparisons to siblings like 'fire_clip' (which triggers playback) or 'stop_clip' (which halts it). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 describes a read operation ('Get') but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'browser items' include (e.g., files, folders, types). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves beyond the basic action.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then details parameters in a clear, bullet-point format. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no redundant or vague information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), one parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or item types, but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'path' by explaining its format ('category/folder/subfolder') and specifying that 'category is one of the available browser categories in Ableton.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only lists 'path' as a string without details), this compensates well, providing essential semantics not in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_browser_tree' by focusing on items at a specific path rather than the entire tree structure. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
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 by specifying the path format and mentioning 'Ableton's browser,' which suggests context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_browser_tree' or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Stop playing') but lacks behavioral details such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it affects all tracks or just playback, error conditions (e.g., if no session is loaded), or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Stop playing'). There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., effects, prerequisites). The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks completeness for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
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 specific action ('Stop playing') and the target resource ('the Ableton session'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'stop_clip' (which stops individual clips) and 'start_playback' (which starts playback). It uses precise verb+resource phrasing without tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when playback is active and needs to be stopped, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if playback is already stopped) or name alternatives like 'stop_clip' for more granular control, missing explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kevinzhang03/ableton-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kevinzhang03/ableton-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kevinzhang03/ableton-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kevinzhang03/ableton-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kevinzhang03/ableton-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server