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

Ableton MCP for Live Intro

by untitledxdamage
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

load_audio_clip

Loads a WAV, AIFF, FLAC, or MP3 file from an absolute path into an empty Session View slot on an audio track.

Instructions

Load an audio file (absolute path, WAV/AIFF/FLAC/MP3) into an empty Session View slot of an audio track.

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>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "load_audio_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
slot_indexYes
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses supported formats and that the destination must be empty, but omits side effects, error behavior when the slot is occupied, permissions, and whether session state is otherwise affected.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, path format, and target slot are delivered without filler. It is appropriately sized for the operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple load operation, the description covers purpose and file path well. However, with three required parameters undocumented in the schema and no annotations or output schema, it leaves index semantics and error/side-effect behavior unclear.

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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It clarifies file_path as an absolute path and lists formats, and implies track_index/slot_index target an audio track and Session View slot, but gives no index base, valid ranges, or precise semantics for the two integer parameters.

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?

Specific verb 'Load' plus resource 'audio file' and a precise target: an empty Session View slot on an audio track. Supported formats and absolute-path requirement further disambiguate it from siblings like arrangement_audio_clip and load_device.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

States the context clearly: Session View, audio track, empty slot. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as arrangement_audio_clip for arrangement placement or create_clip for MIDI, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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