Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by rephlex187
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

duplicate_clip

Duplicate a clip from one slot to an empty slot on the same track in Ableton Live.

Instructions

Duplicate a clip from one slot to an empty slot on the same track.

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": {
      "ctx": "<ctx>",
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "from_clip_index": "<from_clip_index>",
      "to_clip_index": "<to_clip_index>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ctxYes
track_indexYes
to_clip_indexYes
from_clip_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states 'Duplicate'. It omits details like whether the original remains, error handling for non-empty slots, required permissions, or retention of clip properties. Minimal disclosure 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?

A single sentence captures the tool's essence without extraneous words. The verb is front-loaded. Despite missing details, the description is efficiently structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks parameter semantics, behavioral details, and usage guidance, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters, but it does not mention track_index, from_clip_index, or to_clip_index at all. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but lack context like index bases or valid ranges.

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 action ('Duplicate'), the resource ('a clip'), and the specific constraints ('from one slot to an empty slot on the same track'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'duplicate_clip_to_arrangement' and 'delete_clip'.

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 when to use (duplicate within same track to an empty slot) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It does include a condition ('empty slot'), offering some usage context.

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