Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by rephlex187
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_scene_name

Renames a specific scene in an Ableton Live session by providing its index and a new name.

Instructions

Rename a scene.

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>",
      "scene_index": "<scene_index>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_scene_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ctxYes
nameYes
scene_indexYes

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'rename a scene,' omitting any side effects (e.g., impact on references, permissions needed, name constraints, or successful response). The behavior is minimally described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence of three words. While this is structurally simple, it lacks key information (parameter semantics, usage context) that would make it truly helpful. It is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'scene_index' refers to (e.g., zero-based index? how to obtain?), nor does it clarify the 'name' parameter constraints. The description fails to provide adequate context for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain any of the three parameters. While parameter names like 'scene_index' and 'name' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds zero additional meaning or guidance on their usage, format, or constraints.

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 is a clear single verb+resource statement: 'Rename a scene.' It directly states the action and the target resource. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'set_scene_color' or 'set_scene_tempo' which perform different modifications on scenes.

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, no prerequisites, no exclusions. It simply states what it does without any contextual usage hints, leaving the agent with only the implied action.

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