Skip to main content
Glama

als_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads Ableton project and rack files from disk, extracting track, device, and automation data, with optional clip note parsing.

Instructions

Read a saved Ableton project (.als) or rack (.adg) from disk.

Returns:
    Dictionary containing project metadata, track list, devices, and automation structure.

Note:
    This is Channel B, a peer of the live connection rather than a fallback. It
    answers two questions the LOM never will: what is in someone else's project, and
    where an envelope's breakpoints actually sit.

    Automation lives in two places and the LOM can read only one of them. Measured
    over the 174-project corpus (docs/limits.md section 9): 52 (30 %) have clip
    envelopes but 159 (91 %) have
    track automation, and a tool that counted clip envelopes alone reported 110 of
    those projects as unautomated. The two layers are reported separately here and
    are never added together.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesFilesystem path to a saved .als project or .adg rack. The file is read from disk and is not opened in Live, so it does not have to be the set currently on screen.
trackNoNarrow the read to one track, given either as its name or as its index in a string. Empty reads the whole project.
locateNoAnswer with the arguments als_write needs to edit a field, instead of the project survey: the ElementTree expression, the attribute, the index that picks the right match, and the value currently there. 'tempo' for the project tempo, 'track_names' for every track's name. These are the fields usually edited on a file. Anything else needs an expression built by hand, which als_write's own confirm=False resolves against the file and reports on before it writes.
reportNoTrue adds a formatted summary written for a person to read, alongside the structured answer rather than instead of it.
with_notesNoTrue parses the clip notes and reports note metrics, which is the expensive part of the read on a large project.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / locate
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "",
      +  "description": "Answer with the arguments als_write needs to edit a field, instead of the project survey: the ElementTree expression, the attribute, the index that picks the right match, and the value currently there. 'tempo' for the project tempo, 'track_names' for every track's name. These are the fields usually edited on a file. Anything else needs an expression built by hand, which als_write's own confirm=False resolves against the file and reports on before it writes.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "",
      +    "tempo",
      +    "track_names"
      +  ],
      +  "title": "Locate",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Added value: +"Filesystem path to a saved .als project or .adg rack. The file is read from disk and is not opened in Live, so it does not have to be the set currently on screen."
    • addedInput schema / properties / report / description
      Added value: +"True adds a formatted summary written for a person to read, alongside the structured answer rather than instead of it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / track / description
      Added value: +"Narrow the read to one track, given either as its name or as its index in a string. Empty reads the whole project."
    • addedInput schema / properties / with_notes / description
      Added value: +"True parses the clip notes and reports note metrics, which is the expensive part of the read on a large project."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds materially useful behavior beyond that: the file is not opened in Live, automation exists in two separate layers, and those layers are never added together. The corpus stats reinforce a subtle reporting behavior that could otherwise cause misinterpretation.

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 front-loads the core purpose and return shape before a focused note. The note is somewhat long with corpus statistics, but it earns its place by explaining the automation-layer split, a non-obvious behavioral detail. It is structured and readable, though slightly verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description covers the key remaining context: disk-based read scope, relationship to the live connection, automation layer separation, and cost implications of with_notes. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only light context beyond the schema, such as with_notes being the expensive part and locate returning als_write-ready arguments, but it does not meaningfully exceed the schema's already thorough parameter documentation.

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 states a specific operation ('Read a saved Ableton project (.als) or rack (.adg) from disk') and names the returned content (metadata, track list, devices, automation structure). It also distinguishes itself from live-session/LOM siblings by framing itself as Channel B, a peer connection that reads files the LOM cannot.

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?

The description explicitly positions the tool versus the LOM: it is 'a peer of the live connection rather than a fallback' and answers two questions the LOM never will — reading someone else's project and locating envelope breakpoints. This gives clear selection guidance for when this file-based read is appropriate instead of live-session tools.

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/live-maestro'

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