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

Ableton MCP for Live Intro

by untitledxdamage
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_notes

Delete MIDI notes inside a chosen pitch and time range in an Ableton clip, or clear the entire clip by default.

Instructions

Delete notes inside a pitch/time window (defaults: the whole clip).

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": "remove_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
from_timeNo
time_spanNo
from_pitchNo
pitch_spanNo
slot_indexYes
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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. It discloses that deletion is destructive and that omitting the window deletes all notes in the clip, but it says nothing about permanence, permissions, side effects, or whether the deletion can be undone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose and the important default behavior are stated immediately, and every phrase earns its place.

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 six-parameter destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It omits required track/slot context, parameter mappings, and any behavioral detail an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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% across six parameters. The description implies a pitch/time window that maps conceptually to four optional parameters, but it does not name any parameter and never mentions the required track_index and slot_index parameters.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Delete notes' inside 'a pitch/time window'. This distinguishes it from add_notes and get_notes, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

The description gives the default scope ('the whole clip') but no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not say when to prefer this over deleting a clip or using another notes tool.

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