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

Ableton MCP for Live Intro

by untitledxdamage
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_routing

Route a track's audio input or output by display name, such as Resampling to record the master or 808 to record another track. Use get_routing to list options.

Instructions

Route a track by display name, e.g. input_type='Resampling' (records the master) or input_type='808' (records another track). See get_routing for options.

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>"
    },
    "name": "set_routing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNotrack
input_typeNo
output_typeNo
track_indexYes
input_channelNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 never says whether existing routing is overwritten, what happens when input_type/output_type are omitted (null), whether named inputs must already exist, or what the call returns — significant gaps for a mutation 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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and examples without filler. Efficient, though the examples could be replaced by more substantive parameter guidance.

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 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke this correctly. It leaves the semantics of output_type, kind, and input_channel entirely unaddressed.

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 5 parameters, and the description only illustrates input_type. It never explains kind, output_type, input_channel, or the required track_index, so four of five parameters are undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (route) and resource (a track's input/output), and the examples clarify what 'routing by display name' means in practice. It names the complementary sibling get_routing, so an agent can distinguish the write tool from its read counterpart.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The pointer to get_routing is useful for discovering valid routing options, and the two input_type examples imply usage, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus set_track or set_sidechain, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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