Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton Producer MCP

Ableton Producer MCP

by kovtun-oleksii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

load_instrument_or_effect

Load an instrument or audio effect onto a specified track by URI, including the master track for effects, to add devices to an Ableton Live set.

Instructions

Load an instrument or effect onto a track using its URI.

Parameters:

  • track_index: The index of the track to load the instrument on (-1 = master track, for audio effects)

  • uri: The URI of the instrument or effect to load (e.g., 'query:Synths#Instrument%20Rack:Bass:FileId_5116')

  • user_prompt: The original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)

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>",
      "uri": "<uri>"
    },
    "name": "load_instrument_or_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uriYes
track_indexYes
user_promptNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.5+automation.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that track_index=-1 targets the master track and applies only to audio effects, and that user_prompt is telemetry-only. It does not say whether loading replaces an existing device on the track, what happens if the URI is invalid, or whether the session is modified irreversibly.

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 one-sentence purpose leads, followed by a compact bulleted parameter list. Slightly redundant in restating parameter names already present in the schema, but nothing is padded or extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter block is solid for a three-parameter tool. It falls short on the routing question — how this differs from insert_device and load_drum_kit — and on side effects of the load operation, which an agent needs before mutating session state.

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%, and the description does document all three parameters, including the non-obvious -1 = master track convention and a concrete URI format example, which is real added value above the bare schema. However, the semantics of track_index beyond -1 (e.g., whether the track must already exist, indexing base) and the acceptable URI scheme set are left unstated.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: load an instrument or effect onto a track via a URI. That is unambiguous in isolation, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as insert_device or load_drum_kit, which likely perform overlapping device-creation work.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of insert_device or load_drum_kit, and no mention of the prerequisite workflow (e.g., resolving a URI through the browser tools). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the URI example.

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