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

Ableton MCP for Live Intro

by untitledxdamage
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

render_status

Check the progress of an audio render in Ableton Live, optionally blocking for a specified number of seconds until it completes.

Instructions

Progress of the current render; with wait_seconds, block up to that long.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "render_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
wait_secondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses blocking semantics for wait_seconds (a real behavioral trait beyond the schema), but says nothing about the return format, terminal states, or whether the render continues in the background — leaving significant behavioral gaps for an un-annotated tool.

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 tight sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter note trailing. No wasted words, though the clipped phrasing ('up to that long') is slightly terse.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is short on essentials for a status tool: it doesn't describe what the progress report contains or what states a caller should test for. Given the low structured-data richness, more disclosure is needed.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain that wait_seconds causes the call to block up to that duration, which is meaningful beyond the bare 'number' schema, but it omits the unit, default-no-wait behavior, and any upper bound.

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 the resource and concept clearly: 'Progress of the current render'. An agent can tell it reports render status, and it is distinguishable from the sibling render_to_wav (which initiates a render). It lacks an explicit verb but the noun phrase is unambiguous.

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 call this versus alternatives, no mention that it follows render_to_wav, and no polling/state-transition advice. The only usage information is an incidental note about wait_seconds.

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