stopHalt Ableton Live's transport to freeze the current DJ performance immediately.
Stop Live's transport.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "stop"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 clearly names the action and target, but it does not explain side effects such as whether running clips are stopped, whether the action is idempotent, or what happens to recording. For a simple transport control this is adequate but not rich.
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 a single four-word sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless control command, and the key target ('Live's transport') is front-loaded.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: an agent knows what to invoke and needs no additional input details. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that stop_deck exists for individual decks, but that absence is not a significant blocker.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop Live's transport.' This makes the tool's core purpose clear and the 'transport' target distinguishes it from deck-level operations such as stop_deck. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like play or stop_deck in the text, so it stops short of a 5.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of play, stop_deck, or conditions under which stopping the transport is appropriate. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the phrase 'Live's transport.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.