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

Ableton MCP for Live Intro

by untitledxdamage
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

show_view

Display a specific Live window area such as Arranger, Session, or Browser, and optionally hide others to reduce clutter and focus on the needed panel.

Instructions

Show a view of Live's window ('Arranger', 'Session', 'Browser', 'Detail', 'Detail/Clip', 'Detail/DeviceChain') and optionally hide others, e.g. view='Arranger', hide=['Browser', 'Detail'] for a clean Arrangement.

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": "show_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hideNo
viewNoArranger

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool shows a view and optionally hides others, but omits whether hidden views persist, how to restore them, permission requirements, or side effects on the Live UI state.

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 an embedded example. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter UI tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly. It is slightly incomplete regarding sibling routing and persistence behavior, but the core invocation is clear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing valid 'view' strings and demonstrating the 'hide' array format, though it still does not define all accepted 'hide' values or null/default behavior.

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 ('Show') and resource ('view of Live's window') and enumerates valid view names. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool navigate_view, which may also affect views.

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 example 'view='Arranger', hide=['Browser', 'Detail'] for a clean Arrangement' implies a usage scenario, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus navigate_view or other view-related siblings.

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