Skip to main content
Glama

lom_set

Idempotent

Write Ableton Live properties via LOM path and verify read-back, handling out-of-range clamps, quantized values, and Live object references for reliable state changes.

Instructions

Write a property value by LOM path and return verification read-back.

The generic write, and the unvalidated one: set_parameter, set_mix and set_tempo check
the catalog first. lom_call takes a method, lom_batch several writes in one round trip.

Returns:
    Dictionary reporting requested, before, after, clamped, and changed status.
    For a device parameter it also carries ``display`` and ``is_quantized``.

Note:
    An out-of-range value is refused out loud and nothing is stored: ``...volume.value =
    1.4`` answers ``live_error "Invalid value. Check the parameters range with
    min/max"`` and leaves 0.85 standing, as do tempo 5000 and panning 5. What the
    read-back catches is quantised snap: ``<Compressor>.parameters[10].value = 0.4``
    (Model: Peak / RMS / Expand) stored 0 and reported ``clamped: true, read_back:
    "clamped", is_quantized: true, display: "Peak"``, so a value between two steps
    silently becomes another. ``is_quantized`` is what separates a snap to a step
    from a clamp to a range.
    A write can apply asynchronously, leaving ``read_back`` at ``not_observed``, which
    is neither ``clamped`` nor a failure; a method call has no read-back at all; and an
    unknown property name is ignored and reported as success, so check ``changed``
    rather than ``ok``. A collection like ``song.tracks`` cannot be assigned: set a
    property on an element instead.

    A Live object cannot travel as a plain value. Where a property holds one
    (``song.view.selected_track``, ``song.view.selected_scene``,
    ``song.view.detail_clip``, ``browser.hotswap_target``, ``clip.groove``, and on a
    device ``input_routing_type`` and ``input_routing_channel``) pass
    ``value={"__path__": "song.tracks[2]"}`` (protocol section 5.4); handed plain JSON
    the first five answer ``not_settable``. The two routing properties take their
    reference out of ``<device>.available_input_routing_types`` and
    ``...available_input_routing_channels``, never a name string.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesSettable dotted LOM path, e.g. 'song.tempo' or 'song.tracks[0].mixer_device.volume.value'. Note the trailing ``.value``: a mixer control is a DeviceParameter object and the number lives one level inside it.
valueYesThe value to store. A number, string or boolean for a scalar property; a reference dict {'__path__': 'song.tracks[2]'} for a property whose value is itself a Live object.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Added value: +"Settable dotted LOM path, e.g. 'song.tempo' or 'song.tracks[0].mixer_device.volume.value'. Note the trailing ``.value``: a mixer control is a DeviceParameter object and the number lives one level inside it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Added value: +"The value to store. A number, string or boolean for a scalar property; a reference dict {'__path__': 'song.tracks[2]'} for a property whose value is itself a Live object."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral nuances far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, etc.). It details return semantics, clamping, quantization, asynchronous application (read_back: not_observed), silent success for unknown properties, and the distinction between clamped and quantized. It also warns that Live objects cannot travel as plain values and specifies how to pass them via __path__. No contradictions with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence carries essential behavioral or usage information. It is structured with a concise purpose statement, a 'Returns:' section, and a 'Note:' section that systematically covers edge cases. The most important distinguishing information (write vs. alternatives) is front-loaded. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool and the need to prevent common mistakes.

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 complexity of LOM and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return fields, handles out-of-range and quantized values, discusses asynchronous behavior, notes that unknown properties are ignored, and covers special cases for Live object references. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantic details: it explains the trailing .value in paths (e.g., 'a mixer control is a DeviceParameter object and the number lives one level inside it') and specifies the exact structure for Live object values (reference dict with '__path__'). This goes well beyond the schema's generic descriptions, giving the agent the precise syntax needed for correct invocation.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Write a property value by LOM path and return verification read-back.' It then explicitly contrasts with sibling tools: 'The generic write, and the unvalidated one: set_parameter, set_mix and set_tempo check the catalog first. lom_call takes a method, lom_batch several writes in one round trip.' This precisely distinguishes lom_set from its siblings, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives and the conditions that select them. It states that set_parameter, set_mix, and set_tempo are the unvalidated variants, while lom_set is the generic write that checks the catalog. It also advises against assigning collections ('A collection like song.tracks cannot be assigned') and explains when to use __path__ references for Live objects. These are actionable usage rules, not vague hints.

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