stop_deckStop a clip playing on any deck in Ableton Live by specifying the deck name. Use clip_index to select which clip to halt for precise control during a DJ set.
Stop the clip playing on a deck.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | Yes | ||
| clip_index | No |
| 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the stop action but doesn't explain what happens when no clip is playing, whether the deck stops entirely, how clip_index affects behavior, or any side effects.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of missing important usage and parameter context.
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?
With no annotations, an output schema present but not detailed in the description, and an undocumented 'clip_index' parameter, the description is too sparse for reliable invocation. It doesn't explain the optional parameter's meaning or provide enough context to choose this tool over sibling alternatives.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the action targets a clip on a 'deck', which loosely maps to the 'deck' parameter, but 'clip_index' is completely unexplained despite being a parameter with a default value.
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 ('Stop') and the resource ('the clip playing on a deck'). It distinguishes itself from the global sibling 'stop' by specifying deck-level scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from related tools like 'fire_deck' or 'stop'.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stop', 'fire_deck', or 'play'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.