Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by rephlex187
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_track_sends

Retrieve the send levels from a specified track to all return tracks in an Ableton Live session.

Instructions

List a track's send levels to each return 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>"
    },
    "name": "get_track_sends"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ctxYes
track_typeNoregular
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explain behavior for invalid inputs, return format, or side effects. Basic purpose is stated but lacks depth.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 9 words, very concise. However, its brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter context and output details. It could be expanded slightly without losing efficiency.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the expected return value (e.g., a list or dictionary of send levels) and does not elaborate on parameter behavior. A more complete description would include output format and parameter roles.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters (ctx, track_type, track_index). It does not explain data types, ranges, or defaults beyond the schema. The Context parameter is left unexplained.

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 'List a track's send levels to each return track' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'track's send levels to each return track'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_track_info (general info) and set_track_send (setting a send).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. It is a standalone one-liner with no 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