Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by rephlex187
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_track_monitoring_state

Control a track's input monitoring by setting its state to In, Auto, or Off.

Instructions

Set a track's input monitoring state.

Parameters:

  • state: 0 = In, 1 = Auto, 2 = Off

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>",
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "set_track_monitoring_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ctxYes
stateYes
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it sets the state, with no mention of side effects, error conditions, or requirements (e.g., track type, permissions). The mutation implication is clear, but nothing beyond that.

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 short and includes a parameter list, which is efficient. It could be more structured (e.g., line breaks), but it's reasonably front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (mutation tool, 3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, error scenarios, or the broader context of input monitoring. Many sibling tools likely have similar gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds value by mapping integer values to their meanings (0=In,1=Auto,2=Off) for the 'state' parameter, which is not in the schema. However, 'track_index' and 'ctx' have no description; the schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 tool sets a track's input monitoring state, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other set_track_* tools by focusing on monitoring state, but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings with similar functions.

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, no prerequisites or context (e.g., when input monitoring is applicable). The description simply states what it does without usage scenarios or constraints.

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