Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbletonMCP

AbletonMCP

by rephlex187
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_track_send

Sets the send level of a track to a return track, accepting a send index and a value between 0.0 and 1.0.

Instructions

Set a track's send level to a return track.

Parameters:

  • send_index: Index of the send (matches the return track's index)

  • value: Send level (0.0-1.0)

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>",
      "send_index": "<send_index>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_track_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ctxYes
valueYes
send_indexYes
track_typeNoregular
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; the description discloses the value range (0.0-1.0) but does not mention error handling, side effects, or required permissions (e.g., track must exist).

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?

Two sentences, concise, but could be better structured with parameter list for all params.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description should explain what happens on success/failure; it does not address return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like return track existence.

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%; description only covers send_index and value, ignoring track_index and track_type. No explanation of track_index role or track_type options.

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 'Set a track's send level to a return track', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_track_volume or set_track_panning.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., need to identify send_index via get_track_sends).

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