Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP for Live Intro

Ableton MCP for Live Intro

by untitledxdamage
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_notes

Read every MIDI note and clip detail from a chosen track and slot so an AI agent can inspect what was played or programmed.

Instructions

Read all notes of a MIDI clip (e.g. something the user played) plus clip info.

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": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "slot_index": "<slot_index>"
    },
    "name": "get_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slot_indexYes
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a safe, non-destructive operation and 'plus clip info' hints at the return payload, but there is no mention of error conditions (missing clip/slot), permissions, or whether the read is exhaustive for the clip. Most behavioral context is left unstated.

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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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 read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two fully undocumented required parameters, the description is too thin. It gestures at return contents ('plus clip info') but leaves both the addressing parameters and the failure behavior unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions track_index or slot_index, the two required parameters. An agent must infer that these identify the target clip from context alone; the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 (notes of a MIDI clip), which is clear and unambiguous. The parenthetical '(e.g. something the user played)' adds a helpful mental model. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_notes or remove_notes, though the read verb implies the distinction.

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 versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the clip needing to exist. The only hint is '(e.g. something the user played)', which describes a source scenario but is not an actionable usage rule.

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