Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by rephlex187
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_browser_items_at_path

Browse Ableton Live's browser by specifying a category path to retrieve available items for music production.

Instructions

Get browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser.

Parameters:

  • path: e.g. "instruments/Bass" or any other available browser category

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>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_browser_items_at_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ctxYes
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavior beyond the basic action. It does not mention if the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or any side effects. It simply says 'get', which implies no mutation, but no further details.

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?

Description is short and to the point, with a clear structure including a 'Parameters' sublist. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate lines for each param). No fluff.

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 related siblings (get_browser_item, get_browser_tree) and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'browser items' are (list of items? subdirectories?) and the return format. It does not, leaving gaps. The required ctx parameter is not explained.

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 must compensate. It explains the path parameter with an example but does not explain the ctx parameter at all. The schema provides a long description for ctx, but the tool description adds nothing. Overall, meaning added is minimal.

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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'browser items', with context about path. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like get_browser_tree (likely returns tree) or get_browser_item (likely returns single item).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_browser_tree or get_browser_item. The example path is provided but no exclusion criteria or context-specific advice.

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