Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Live Maestro

Live Maestro

by romanstark
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_tempo_map

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read quarter-beat, BPM, and step/ramp events from a saved Ableton .als file's Main/Master tempo track to verify or analyze tempo mapping.

Instructions

Read quarter-beat/BPM/step-or-ramp events from the actual tempo target.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_tempo_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesSaved .als file; reads persisted Main/Master tempo.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'from the actual tempo target' hints that it reads persisted/authoritative tempo data rather than a derived view, adding modest context but no detail on scope or content of the map.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb, resource, and event types with no wasted words. Efficient, though terse enough that it could carry a bit more routing context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, with only alternative-routing guidance missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'path' parameter, which the schema already documents as a saved .als file reading persisted Main/Master tempo. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (tempo map events: quarter-beat/BPM/step-or-ramp) from the actual tempo target. This distinguishes it reasonably from write_tempo_map and verify_tempo_map, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite relevant siblings like read_automation and verify_tempo_map. The agent is left to infer the read scenario.

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