set_fx_macroSet a named performance FX macro on a selected Ableton Live deck to any intensity from 0.0 to 1.0, enabling precise real-time control during a DJ set.
Set a PERF-rack macro on a deck by name (e.g. 'Glitch', 'Space', 'Crush'). value 0.0–1.0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | Yes | ||
| macro | Yes | ||
| value | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the value range 0.0–1.0 but does not explain what setting a macro does, whether the macro must already exist, potential side effects, or error behavior. This is thin for a mutating operation.
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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. The examples and value range earn their place, though the fragment 'value 0.0–1.0' could be integrated more cleanly.
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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is not sufficient. It lacks valid deck values, acceptable macro names, and guidance on how this tool relates to the many sibling FX tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming parameters and adding the value range and macro examples, but it leaves deck identifier format and accepted macro names underspecified.
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 clearly states the action ('Set a PERF-rack macro on a deck by name') and provides concrete examples of macro names ('Glitch', 'Space', 'Crush'). It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_device_parameter or fx_sweep.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_sweep, fx_pulse, or set_device_parameter. The description only explains the mechanics, not the selection criteria or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.