Skip to main content
Glama
romanstark

Ableton Maestro

get_clip

Read a Session clip's properties from a specified track and slot: length, loop, warp, pitch, markers, and flags. Confirms the slot contains a clip before returning data.

Instructions

Read one Session clip's properties: length, loop, warp, pitch, markers, flags.

Checks the slot is filled first, because a clip only exists while its slot
has one and every property read would otherwise fail one by one.

Notes are not properties; use ``read_clip_notes``. Automation is not a property
either; use ``read_automation``.

``warping``, ``warp_mode`` and ``pitch_coarse`` are reachable only through a generic
path, because a per-command bridge has no command for them and a missing command is
easily mistaken for a missing capability (docs/architecture.md, 'the restart tax').
Each was read, written, read back and restored on 2026-08-29 against Live 12.4.5, and
all three rows are ``verified``. ``pitch_fine`` is read-verified only, with no write
attempted on it, and the integer mapping behind ``warp_mode`` is still a hypothesis:
confirm it against ``clip.available_warp_modes``, which is the authoritative per-clip
list.

Writing ``warping`` invalidates every time field this tool just returned. Measured
2026-08-30 against Live 12.4.5 on a 1.14-unit audio clip at 120 BPM: turning warping
on took ``loop_end`` from 0.5704 to 1.1408 and ``end_marker`` from 1.1408 to 2.2816,
both doubled, while ``length`` did not follow. At 60 BPM the same toggle moved
neither. The mechanism is not established and is not claimed; what is established is
that the numbers move and that the factor tracks the tempo. Call this again after any
write to ``warping`` rather than reusing what it said before.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotYes
trackYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and over-delivers: it reveals the filled-slot precheck, the generic-bridge limitation for waring-mode fields, the verified vs. hypothesis status of specific fields, and the measured fact that writing waring changes time values. It also honestly notes what is and is not established about the mechanism.

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 tool purpose is front-loaded and later paragraphs are clearly structured by topic. The content is unusually long, but most of it is substantive caveat material; some measured-detail sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the important behavioral complexity: missing bridge commands, verification status, warp_mode hypothesis, and invalidation of returned time fields. The main gap is that the parameters themselves are left essentially undocumented.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain 'track' or 'slot' beyond mentioning 'slot' in the filled-slot check. It does not state indexing, coordinate meaning, valid ranges, or how the clip is addressed. For two unannotated integer parameters, more parameter guidance is needed.

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?

Opens with a precise verb plus resource: 'Read one Session clip's properties' and lists the property groups. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that notes and automation are not properties and routing those to read_clip_notes and read_automation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names alternatives ('read_clip_notes', 'read_automation') and states when they should be used instead. It also gives a direct after-write guideline: call this again after any write to 'warping' rather than reusing prior results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/romanstark/ableton-maestro'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server