ableton12-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.2.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but there is some intentional overlap between get_device_parameters/get_macros and set_device_parameter/set_macro, and record_and_analyze is a composite of record_audio and analyze_audio. These are documented clearly enough to avoid confusion in practice.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_midi_track, set_device_parameter, delete_scene). Minor exceptions like health, new_live_set, and save_set_as are still readable and do not disrupt the overall predictability.
Tool Count2/5At 62 tools, the server is far beyond the 25+ threshold that indicates an over-heavy toolset. While Ableton is a complex domain, the count feels overwhelming and many tools could be consolidated (e.g., record_and_analyze already merges two).
Completeness4/5The toolset covers the full creative workflow: session/track/clip management, device control, scenes, transport, audio capture, analysis, and comparison. The main gap is that export is not fully automated—open_export_dialog requires manual confirmation—but the capture-to-arrangement path fills most of the pipeline.
Average 3.9/5 across 62 of 62 tools scored. Lowest: 2.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the value range (0.0-1.0) and 0-based indexing, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, permissions, or what happens if an invalid index is used. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (one sentence), but the sentence is grammatically awkward and misleading ('to return track send_index'), which harms comprehension. It is not effectively structured; a clearer phrasing would separate setting the level from identifying the send.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and moderate complexity, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the role of each parameter, the optionality of value/value_normalized, or any side effects. The presence of an output schema helps return values but does not compensate for the lack of context for a setter operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains 'send level (0.0-1.0)' (likely value) and 'send_index (0-based)', but does not explain track_index, or the optional value_normalized parameter, nor how value and value_normalized relate. The description adds some meaning but leaves significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a clear verb and resource ('Set a track's send level'), but the phrase 'to return track send_index (0-based)' is confusing and potentially malformed, obscuring whether this is a setter or a getter and what 'return track' refers to. It does distinguish from sibling set_track_* tools, but the ambiguity reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_volume or set_track_pan. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the track must exist, send must be available) or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of setting a name, but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or any requirements such as the scene existing. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, which is appropriate for its simplicity. However, it may be too terse, lacking useful details, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's mutating nature, the lack of annotations, and the absence of any output schema explanation, the description is not complete enough. It fails to clarify scene indexing, error conditions, or what the return value might be, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention either parameter. While 'scene_index' and 'name' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning about how to use them, such as indexing base or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Set a scene's name' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_name and set_clip_name by specifying 'scene'. However, it lacks additional scope details that would make it a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of when to rename a scene or what conditions must be met, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the track's name, but fails to mention prerequisites, index base, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no fluff, but it is too sparse to be considered ideal, as it omits useful parameter or behavior details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation and existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks critical context like parameter semantics and side effects, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. No explanation of track_index (e.g., zero-based) or name constraints is given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the name of a track' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the operation and distinguishing it from other set_track_* tools like set_track_volume or set_track_color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_clip_name or set_scene_name. The description only states the action without any context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'delete the clip', which implies destructive action, but does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, whether it affects playback, if any permissions are required, or what happens if the clip does not exist. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no redundancy or padding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks crucial context for a delete operation: it does not explain how to identify the clip via track_index and clip_index, does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid index), and provides no behavioral reassurance. For a simple yet destructive operation, more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'clip slot', which loosely maps to clip_index, but does not clarify that track_index refers to the track containing the slot, nor does it explain the integer indexing semantics or how the two indices work together. Minimal additive value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (delete) and the target resource (clip), with specific reference to a 'clip slot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_clip, stop_clip, create_clip, or duplicate_clip, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with related operations like stop_clip or duplicate_clip. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description, but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies mutation, but no side effects, permissions, error conditions, or reversibility are mentioned. This is a gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous content. It is maximally concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description is extremely sparse. It lacks usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for a tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the indices, indexing conventions, or the 'name' parameter beyond its raw string type. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional meaning is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the name of a clip' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_name and set_clip_color. It unambiguously states the exact operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description merely states the function without any contextual instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains the index default behavior but does not disclose mutation side effects, permissions, or reversibility for creating a track.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value, with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple one-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and key parameter behavior. However, it omits usage differentiation and deeper behavioral context, making it minimally complete rather than fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the index parameter by explaining that -1 appends at the end, which is not in the schema. However, it leaves other index values ambiguous, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a new audio track' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool create_midi_track. The added index behavior further clarifies the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_midi_track. The description does not mention exclusions or context for choosing an audio track over a MIDI track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions deletion and track targeting, but does not warn about irreversibility, potential error conditions, or the effect of passing both 'track' and 'track_index'. This is a destructive operation, and the lack of warnings or behavioral details is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and the one nuanced detail about track targeting. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It fails to explain the required 'device_index' parameter, the meaning of 'track_index', or the behavior when both 'track' and 'track_index' are provided. For a destructive tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only explains the 'track' parameter (allowing 'master'/'return:N'), but leaves 'track_index' and 'device_index' completely unexplained. There is no mention of how these parameters interact or which takes precedence, making the parameter semantics insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a device from a track') and identifies the resource (device on a track). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'delete_track' by specifying device deletion. The track='master'/'return:N' note adds precision, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by explaining how to target master/return tracks via the 'track' parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_device_enabled' (disabling vs deleting), nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions placement ('next clip slot') but does not clarify what happens if that slot is occupied, whether it overwrites, or if it creates a deep copy. This ambiguity leaves critical behavior undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the simple operation, the description omits crucial invocation details such as index semantics, overwrite behavior, and error conditions. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of clip_index or track_index, their zero/one-based indexing, or valid ranges. The agent must infer semantics entirely from parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Duplicate a clip') and the destination ('next clip slot on the same track'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_track and create_clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when duplicating a clip to the adjacent slot on the same track. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple action ('Start playing') without revealing side effects such as whether transport starts, whether other clips are stopped, or any quantization behavior. This is insufficient for a state-mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Start playing a clip (launches the clip slot).' Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite being a simple operation, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral details (e.g., prerequisites or side effects). The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the under-specified input and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides two integer indices (clip_index, track_index) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain how these indices relate (e.g., that track_index identifies the track and clip_index identifies the clip within it) or any constraints like zero-based indexing. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Start playing a clip' and clarifies 'launches the clip slot'. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like start_playback (which starts global transport) and stop_clip (which stops a clip). The phrase 'clip slot' implies a targeted action on a specific clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for a specific clip slot but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like start_playback or stop_clip. It lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer from context rather than receive direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must itself disclose behavior. It explains the sequence (load rack, then kit) and the selection of the 'first loadable kit,' which gives some transparency. However, it does not mention potential side effects like replacing existing devices, error conditions if the kit path is invalid, or whether the rack is created from scratch or reused. The behavior is partially disclosed but not fully.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: the verb, the resource, and the specific path. It is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool performs a multi-step load operation with three parameters and no annotation context, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens after loading (e.g., return value from output schema), prerequisite conditions (e.g., track existence), or the meaning of rack_uri and track_index. Given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 explains 'kit_path' as the location of the kit to load, but 'rack_uri' and 'track_index' remain unexplained. The description's mention of 'Load a Drum Rack' implies rack_uri is used but does not clarify its format or role. With two of three parameters undocumented, the description adds insufficient value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Load a Drum Rack, then load the first loadable kit found at kit_path.' It uses a specific verb (load) and identifies the resources (Drum Rack, kit path), which distinguishes it from siblings like load_instrument_or_effect. The two-step process adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_instrument_or_effect. It implies usage for loading drum kits but does not state exclusions or context where another tool would be more appropriate. The phrase 'first loadable kit' hints at selection behavior but not at when to choose this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility but only states the action and unit. It does not disclose valid tempo range, side effects on playback, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the operation's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no redundancy, fully front-loaded with the verb 'Set' and the target resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the core action is clear, but the lack of behavioral details or usage context makes it minimally viable. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but no mention of constraints or related tools limits completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that the 'tempo' parameter is in BPM. However, it adds no details on range, precision, or validation, so it only partially compensates for the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Set' and a clear resource 'session tempo' with the unit 'BPM'. It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling transport tools like set_song_position or set_time_signature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative guidance is provided. The description simply states the action without any context on when it should be used relative to other transport-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions length units but does not explain what happens if the clip_index already contains a clip, whether the operation is reversible, or any required permissions. This leaves uncertainty about potential destructive actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and the unit clarification is a high-value addition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple creation tool with only three parameters, the description provides the essential purpose and unit clarification. However, it omits behavioral details such as overwrite behavior or success indication. Given no annotations and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning for the 'length' parameter by clarifying its unit (BEATS). However, 'clip_index' and 'track_index' are not described beyond their names, and the schema provides no descriptions. The tool partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage but leaves two parameters to inference.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action ('Create a new empty MIDI clip') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_notes_to_clip or delete_clip by specifying it creates an empty clip. The unit clarification ('length is in BEATS (not bars)') adds precision.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when a new empty MIDI clip is needed) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites such as existing tracks or clip slots, or when to prefer another tool like duplicate_clip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description gives no information about side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, or whether starting transport is idempotent. With no annotations to supplement, this leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral traits such as whether it initiates playback or what occurs if already playing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the exact purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter action, the core purpose is stated, but the description lacks context about when to use it, what side effects it triggers, or any preconditions. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the action's implications remain undisclosed, making it minimally sufficient yet incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no obligation to explain parameter meaning. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start') and the target resource ('the session transport'), which is a specific, unambiguous operation. It naturally differentiates from its sibling tool 'stop_playback', which performs the opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_playback or get_transport. The description simply states what it does without any context about the intended workflow or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 explains the RGB integer format, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), or whether the change is reversible. This is acceptable for a simple setter but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action and the color format, making every word meaningful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter, but with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should clarify indexing semantics and any prerequisites. It covers the color format but leaves the track/clip indices ambiguous, making it minimally complete for an uninitiated agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 explains the 'color' parameter format but does not clarify how 'track_index' and 'clip_index' identify the target clip. This leaves two of three parameters under-specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('a clip's color'), and adds the packed RGB integer format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_color, which sets a track's color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied as setting a clip's color, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_track_color or set_clip_name. No preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 of behavior disclosure. It states the primary behavior but does not discuss side effects, behavior when the clip is not playing, handling of invalid indices, or relationship to other playback controls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core action and is minimally adequate given the simple two-parameter interface and presence of an output schema. It lacks sibling differentiation and parameter semantics, leaving some gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain track_index or clip_index. 'Clip slot' implies the pair of indices but adds minimal explicit meaning beyond what the input schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Stop' and identifies the resource as a 'clip slot', which clearly states the tool's function. This differentiates it from sibling tool stop_playback, which stops global playback rather than a single clip slot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call this when you want to stop a playing clip slot. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor any mention of the alternative stop_playback for stopping transport.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action itself without revealing potential side effects, such as whether the playhead resets, whether recording also stops, or whether it errors if already stopped. The description adds no context beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It contains no filler or redundant details, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, no annotations), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need explanation. However, it lacks context about whether any preconditions exist (e.g., transport must be playing), which keeps it from being a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stop the session transport' clearly identifies the action (stop) and the specific resource (session transport). It differentiates from sibling tools like start_playback, stop_clip, and fire_clip by targeting the global transport rather than individual clips or scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this stops playback globally, nor does it contrast with stop_clip or pause-like behaviors. The usage is only implied by the name and description, providing no exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the operation sequence (capture then analyze) and the return shape {capture, analysis}. However, it does not explain side effects of 'capture' (e.g., whether it overwrites a clip, affects transport, or requires an armed track), leaving a meaningful gap for a mutating operation. The return contract helps but is not complete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact (two sentences), front-loads the core function, and includes a useful example and return type. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 7 optional parameters, and a composite operation, the description is under-specified. It references record_audio for source and mentions a return object, but lacks detail on other parameters, prerequisites, and side effects. Even with an output schema, the tool is not sufficiently described for reliable invocation without additional lookups.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It offers an example with source, bars, and scene, but only 'source' is explicitly referenced ('see record_audio'); bars and scene are shown without definitions, and solo, device, seconds, and position_beats are entirely omitted. This leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Capture `source` then analyze it in one call', identifying the combined record-and-analyze behavior. It distinguishes from siblings by calling it 'the single primitive the tuning loop uses' and provides a concrete usage example, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage context: it is the tuning loop's primitive, used after changing a parameter to read the result. It references record_audio for source semantics, implying alternatives, but does not explicitly state when to use analyze_audio alone or other exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that 0 means None and launches clips immediately, and that the setting is global and reversible via capture_session_to_arrangement. However, it does not describe effects on currently loaded clips or list other quantization values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a concise two sentences, front-loads the purpose and key parameter detail, and includes a useful reference to a sibling tool without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter setter, the description covers the primary purpose and the meaning of 0, but it lacks a complete mapping of quantization indices. Given no schema descriptions, this is a notable gap that could prevent correct usage for non-zero values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no description for the 'value' parameter, and the description only explains the index 0. It does not enumerate valid indices or describe what other integer values map to, leaving the parameter semantically incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it sets the global clip-launch quantization by index, with a specific explanation of the 0 value. It also distinguishes its role relative to capture_session_to_arrangement, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explains that capture_session_to_arrangement uses this setting (sets to None and restores) and that this tool is exposed for manual control. This gives context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the on/off action clearly, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as exclusive arming (disarming other tracks), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the track index is invalid. The description covers the basic behavior but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and immediately explains the value mapping. There is no redundant information or filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, and the output schema exists (so return values are not a penalty). However, the description lacks contextual details that would help an agent understand the full scope: no mention of exclusive arming behavior, whether playback must be stopped, or the relationship to recording tools like record_audio. The description is minimally sufficient but leaves room for important contextual assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does so for the 'on' parameter by explicitly mapping True to arm and False to disarm. The 'track_index' parameter is only named in the schema, but its meaning is self-evident. Given only two parameters, this partial compensation is effective.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Arm'/'disarm') with a clear resource ('a track') and purpose ('for recording'). It uniquely distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, as no other tool handles track arming. The addition of on=True/False mapping further clarifies the action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as needing to be in a recording session, or that arming is typically followed by start_playback or record_audio. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful non-obvious behavior: 'Higher scene indices shift down.' This informs the agent about side effects beyond the delete operation, though it does not mention error handling or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences—with no filler. Both sentences add value: the first states the action, the second clarifies the reindexing behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies the core behavior and one side effect, but lacks context about edge cases (e.g., invalid index) and does not mention that the operation is destructive, though this is implied by the verb 'delete.' The presence of an output schema covers return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter details. It does not elaborate on 'scene_index' beyond the schema's type and requirement, leaving ambiguity about index base (0-based vs 1-based) or valid range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete a scene') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like delete_clip and delete_track by clearly indicating it operates on scenes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage is implied: if you want to delete a scene, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying the return format (JSON list of notes) and the fields (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute, note_id when available). It does not cover error handling, prerequisites, or empty-list behavior, but the read-only nature is clear from the verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, with the action clearly stated first and return details second. Every sentence provides necessary information, and there is no redundant or unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple purpose and an output schema, and the description covers the return value. However, the complete lack of parameter semantics and any caveats (e.g., MIDI-only, behavior for empty clips) leaves meaningful gaps. An agent would need to guess at how to specify the clip and what conditions might affect the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema shows two parameters (track_index, clip_index) with zero descriptions. The description does not mention these parameters at all, so it adds no meaning about indexing conventions, ranges, or how to identify the target clip. The agent must infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource 'all MIDI notes from a clip.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip and remove_notes_from_clip, which perform different actions. The purpose is unambiguous and focused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its use case—when you need to read notes from a clip—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., only for MIDI clips). There is no mention of alternative tools or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 clearly discloses that the tool toggles the device's bypass/'Device On' switch, but does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. Adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and minimal schema descriptions, the tool is simple enough that this may suffice, but it lacks usage examples, side-effect warnings, or context about when the device must exist or be enabled. Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but overall completeness is only moderate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 adds meaning only for the optional 'track' parameter (special 'master'/'return:N' values), while required parameters track_index, device_index, and on are left to be inferred from their names. Compensation is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('device on/off'), explicitly clarifying the bypass/'Device On' switch. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_device_parameter or delete_device.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context for using special track values ('master'/'return:N') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., stopping playback, prerequisites, or edge cases) or any additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and provides necessary detail without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and the meaning of the parameter. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral caveats, but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'beats' parameter by specifying 'position in beats from song start', which is not present in the schema (coverage 0%). This clarifies the unit and reference point.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move'), the target ('transport playhead'), and the unit ('beats from song start'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_playback or stop_playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. The description implies its use for setting playback position, but it does not mention any exclusions or comparisons with other transport tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the on parameter's effect (True=solo, False=unsolo), which is the core behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or the meaning of track_index, leaving some transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, the resource, and the parameter's meaning, earning its place without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter, the description covers the core behavior and explains the primary parameter. It lacks detail on track_index and error cases, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making it reasonably complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the 'on' parameter by mapping True/False to solo/unsolo, which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify the 'track_index' parameter (e.g., zero-based indexing), and with 0% schema description coverage, that omission is notable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Solo'/'unsolo' and identifies the resource 'a track', while explicitly mapping the 'on' parameter to True or False. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_mute or set_track_arm, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (to solo/unsolo a track) and differentiates by function name, but it offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives might be more appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites or edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the action objectively ('fires every track's clip in that scene row'), but doesn't address potential side effects, indexing, or return output. Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter trigger tool, the description covers the core behavior. Output schema exists, so return values aren't needed. Missing minor context like indexing base, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain scene_index beyond implying it references a row. No detail on zero/one-based indexing or range limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Launch' and clarifies scope: 'fires every track's clip in that scene row.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling fire_clip, which triggers individual clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for triggering an entire scene row, contrasting with fire_clip. It provides context for when to use it (when you want to launch all clips in a scene) but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds context about loading onto master/return tracks and the follow-up workflow, but fails to mention side effects like whether an existing device is replaced, error handling for invalid URIs, or any prerequisites. This is partial disclosure for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no fluff: purpose, discovery workflow, and special track targeting. It is front-loaded and each sentence contributes distinct information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is moderately complex with multiple track addressing modes and a discovery dependency. The description covers URI discovery and master/return targeting, but omits track_index semantics and failure/error behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need explanation, but the missing parameter nuance and side effects leave the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 3 parameters with zero description coverage. The description compensates for 'uri' by pointing to browser-tree discovery, and for 'track' by showing specific string values like 'master' and 'return:0'. However, 'track_index' (a required parameter) is not explained at all, leaving a key part of the input semantics vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Load an instrument or effect device onto a track by its browser URI' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_browser_tree (discovery) and load_drum_kit (specific device type) by focusing on generic device loading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs to discover URIs with get_browser_tree / get_browser_items_at_path, and to follow up with get_device_parameters and set_device_parameter. It also explains how to target master and return tracks via the 'track' parameter, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses realtime capture, soloing behavior with state restoration, system prerequisites, fallback behavior, and return value. However, it could be more explicit about side effects like automatically starting playback or potential failure modes, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately long but dense with essential information. Each sentence contributes prerequisites, workflow, or parameter guidance. It could be tightened slightly, but the length is justified for an 11-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite missing parameter details, the description is contextually complete for the core usage: it explains prerequisites, workflow, duration selection, source selection, and return path. With an output schema existing, the return format is covered. The main gap is the unexplained advanced parameters, but overall it's a well-rounded description for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 explains source, scene, bars/seconds, and position_beats meaningfully. However, 6 of 11 parameters (solo, device, out_path, tail_seconds, tighten_launch, preroll_seconds) remain unexplained, leaving gaps for an agent to infer their semantics. This is a clear gap given low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool captures Live's audio output to a WAV via a loopback device, specifying a verb, resource, and output format. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like analyze_audio/compare_audio by suggesting the output feeds into them, but it does not explicitly distinguish from record_and_analyze, so it loses a point.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides concrete guidance on choosing duration (bars vs seconds, prefer 2-4 bars), selecting source (track index vs master/return), and scene configuration (Session vs Arrangement). It gives clear context for the main workflow but does not explicitly state when to use an alternative like record_and_analyze, so it does not earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the value range and special track targeting, but does not mention error handling, clamping behavior, or effects of invalid inputs (e.g., out-of-range value, nonexistent track).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action 'Set a track's pan'. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter, but the description omits clarification on the relationship between 'track_index' and 'track', which could cause incorrect invocation. The output schema exists, but the targeting ambiguity remains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'value' range and the special 'track' strings, but does not explain 'track_index', which is a required parameter. This leaves a notable gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set a track's pan' with an explicit value range (-1.0 to +1.0) and special targeting for 'master'/'return:N' tracks. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_send.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for parameter semantics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the self-explanatory name and distinct operation make usage inferable from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 conveys that the tool performs a read-only hierarchical lookup and returns top-level categories, but it doesn't elaborate on request behavior, potential permissions, or response characteristics. The listed categories add context, but the description is sparse on non-obvious behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two purposeful sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and parameter values, followed by a directive to a sibling tool. No redundant or filler content exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description. It adequately states the tool's scope and points to the next step. However, the lack of parameter semantics leaves a noticeable gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly. Completeness is acceptable but not outstanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the 'category_type' parameter's role. It only lists the category values as the tree's content, not how the parameter filters or selects them. The agent cannot infer whether to pass a category name or what the default 'all' means for the result. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'Get' and a defined resource 'top-level browser categories', listing the exact category names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, especially get_browser_items_at_path, which is explicitly mentioned. Purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly directs when to use an alternative: 'Use get_browser_items_at_path to drill in and find loadable URIs.' This provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate (top-level browsing) and when to switch to a sibling, satisfying the 'when-not' and 'alternatives' criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds valuable context beyond the name: defaults (from_time=0, full length, all pitches), time_span=None semantics (to end of clip), and the region-limited nature. It does not mention reversibility or effects on other elements, but the core behavior is well described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and region, the second provides key defaults and special-time-span behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the primary action, defaults, and a non-obvious sentinel value. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could mention whether removal is destructive/undoable or if it affects both session and arrangement, but these are not critical gaps given the tool's focused scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 explains from_time default, time_span=None behavior, and implies 'all pitches' via defaults (though not explicitly mapping from_pitch/pitch_span). It does not explain units or the meaning of pitch_span beyond the phrase 'all pitches', and track_index/clip_index are left to be inferred from names. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('MIDI notes from a clip') and scopes the action to a 'time/pitch region'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip and get_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for removing notes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_notes_to_clip. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The context is clear but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool sets a macro and mentions value/value_normalized semantics via reference to set_device_parameter. However, it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or behavior if the macro is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the semantics reference in the second sentence. No superfluous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple setter with an output schema present. The description covers the macro identification and value semantics. While it does not address all edge cases, the combination of description and schema is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 explains the 'macro' parameter accepts an index (0-based) or name, and clarifies value semantics via set_device_parameter. It does not explain track_index or device_index, but these are straightforward from their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set a Rack macro by index (0-based) or name.' This is specific with a verb and resource, distinguishing it from set_device_parameter and other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by targeting Rack macros specifically, differentiating from set_device_parameter. It also references shared semantics with set_device_parameter, offering guidance for value handling, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a setter operation ('Set') but doesn't elaborate on side effects, value constraints, or how existing settings are affected. The example hints at parameter pairing but doesn't add behavioral depth beyond the basic mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single, purposeful sentence with a concrete example. It front-loads the action and includes no filler, making it efficient and easily digestible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two required parameters, and the description explains both the operation and the parameter mapping. An output schema exists, so return values don't need to be described. It lacks detail about constraints or side effects, but for this tool it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by illustrating the exact parameter mapping: numerator=3, denominator=4 for 3/4. This adds meaningful semantics for both integer parameters, making their roles clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Set the song time signature' with a concrete example (numerator=3, denominator=4 for 3/4). It is a specific verb+resource statement and stands apart from sibling tools like set_tempo or set_metronome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool vs alternatives, but its clear purpose implies usage whenever a time signature change is needed. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly indicates the mutating action ('Set') and details the color encoding (0xRRGGBB with an example), which goes beyond a simple restatement. It does not discuss reversibility or error handling, but for a simple setter this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and adds the essential color format detail in a compact way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could clarify the track_index parameter, but the tool's low complexity and the provided output schema reduce the need for extended detail. Overall, it is complete for the task at hand.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'color' parameter format (packed RGB integer with example) and its meaning, but does not describe 'track_index' semantics (e.g., zero-based, valid range). Thus, only partial parameter clarification is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set'), identifies the resource ('a track's color'), and includes the packed RGB integer format with an example, clearly distinguishing it from set_clip_color. It unambiguously states the tool's purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to set a track's color, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like set_clip_color or other track-related tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses dependencies ('Needs numpy+soundfile'), algorithm fallback ('loudness_method says whether LUFS came from pyloudnorm or the numpy fallback'), and implies read-only intent via 'listening step.' It also enumerates the full set of computed metrics, which is substantial behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then packs in detailed output information. While the output list is long, it is organized and every sentence adds value. It is appropriately detailed for a complex analysis tool, though some metric enumeration may be redundant with the output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers prerequisites, dependencies, workflow, and algorithm fallback. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. It doesn't discuss error cases, but the core usage context is well covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (wav_path) with zero description coverage. The description implies the path should be a rendered/captured audio file by saying 'Capture a track/section first (record_audio) or render via the export path, then analyze.' This adds context beyond the field title but lacks explicit format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Analyze a rendered/captured audio file — the objective listening step.' This is a specific verb+resource combination and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like record_audio and record_and_analyze by framing it as the analysis-after-capture step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Capture a track/section first (record_audio) or render via the export path, then analyze.' This names the prerequisite sibling tool and establishes temporal ordering. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like compare_audio, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect (higher track indices shift down) and recommends re-reading get_session_info, which is valuable behavioral context. It omits error handling but covers the main mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase adds value, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple operation, existing output schema, and clear disclosure of side effects, the description is mostly complete. The only gap is lack of invalid-index handling, but that is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention track_index at all. It fails to clarify whether indexing is zero-based or which track is targeted, leaving the parameter meaning entirely to the schema property name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a track' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_clip, delete_device, and delete_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides a clear usage context by explaining the index shift and telling the user to re-read get_session_info afterwards. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient for the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that duplication includes devices and clips, and that track indices change afterward—important side-effect information. It does not mention non-destructiveness or error handling, but the core behavior is adequately disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is duplicated, and the need to refresh indices. It could mention what happens to the original or the new track's position, but such details are implied by the duplication concept and the re-read instruction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not directly explain 'track_index' beyond what the schema offers (type integer). The indirect hint to use get_session_info for indices implies the parameter's origin, but it lacks explicit meaning such as zero-based indexing or validity range.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Duplicate a track (with its devices and clips).' The verb 'duplicate' is specific, and the parenthetical clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_clip or create_midi_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit post-action guidance: 'Re-read get_session_info afterwards to learn indices.' This indicates when to use the tool (when duplicating a track) and provides a clear follow-up step. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (JSON like get_device_parameters but limited to macros) and indicates this is a read operation by stating they can be set with set_macro, which conveys non-destructive intent. It does not detail error conditions or authorization, but the read-only nature is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: first states the primary action, second provides output context by referencing a sibling tool, third gives a pointer to the corresponding setter. Every sentence adds value and the main purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two integer parameters and an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers purpose, scope, differentiation, and the related setter. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like the device needing to be a Rack, but the description already states 'of a Rack device'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of track_index or device_index, nor how to identify a Rack device. The only hint is 'Rack device' in the description, which is insufficient for an agent to know how to fill these parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'macro controls of a Rack device', clearly distinguishing it from sibling get_device_parameters by stating it is 'limited to the rack's macros'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context by comparing to get_device_parameters and mentions that macros can be set with set_macro, implying the appropriate use case for reading macros. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond these.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It lists the returned data categories but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. The use of 'Get' implies no side effects, but this is not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Get') and resource ('current Ableton session'), and then provides clarifying examples. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the scope by enumerating the key data categories. The output schema handles detailed return values, so no further explanation is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers this completely. With 0 params, the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific meaning, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about the current Ableton session' with specific examples (tempo, time signature, counts, master mixer). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info (track-level) and get_transport (transport state).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving session-level overview but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_track_info or get_master_meter. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It clearly states the action (on/off), but does not disclose any additional behavioral context such as persistence, side effects, or prerequisites. For a simple boolean toggle, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the verb. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature (one boolean parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description 'Turn the metronome on or off' directly explains the single boolean parameter 'on', mapping true/false to the action. This compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'turn' and names the resource 'metronome', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that control tracks, clips, or transport. It unambiguously states the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when the user wants to enable or disable the metronome), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the tool's unique function, no exclusions are needed, but the lack of explicit context prevents a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the insertion position (appended after existing returns), which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether the return track is enabled, has a default device, or affects mixer routing. This is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool, the description sufficiently covers the core operation and ordering. An output schema exists, so return value details are unnecessary. Some gaps remain around side effects and prerequisites, but the simplicity of the operation warrants a relatively high completeness score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Baseline 4 applies since no parameter information is needed. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifically states the action ('Create') and resource ('new return track'), and adds a scope qualifier ('appended after existing returns'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_audio_track, which handle other track types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies clear usage context: use when you need to create a return track. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use, but the verb and resource are unambiguous enough given the sibling names. The 'appended after existing returns' detail provides practical ordering context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does explain the index=-1 appending behavior, which is useful, but it omits other potential behaviors like error handling, whether the new scene is empty, or if it becomes the selected scene. This is a minimal but non-contradictory disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the action and the most important parameter behavior immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. The description covers the core behavior (create scene, index appending) adequately. It doesn't describe broader context, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It successfully explains the key parameter 'index' by noting that -1 appends at the end, adding meaning to the default. It could be more explicit about other index values, but the essential semantics are covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('a new scene') and adds a key behavioral detail about index=-1 appending. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_scene, set_scene_name, and delete_scene.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, the description provides clear context for how to use the tool via the index parameter. The purpose is self-evident given the sibling operations, but it could be stronger with explicit guidance on when to choose this over related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool lists items and what each item reports, implying a read-only, non-mutating operation. While it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid paths or recursive behavior, it provides sufficient transparency for a simple listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two tightly written sentences. The action verb 'List' leads the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the output fields. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a single parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, this description covers the essentials: purpose, path examples, and returned data. It does not discuss recursion, error handling, or path resolution semantics, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete. The presence of an output schema means return value details are less critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only defines 'path' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by providing concrete examples of path formats ('instruments/Operator' or 'drums'), giving the agent valuable guidance on what to pass. It doesn't exhaustively specify syntax details (e.g., leading slashes, case sensitivity), so it stops short of a 5.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('browser items at a path'), and it gives concrete examples of valid paths ('instruments/Operator' or 'drums'). It also enumerates the returned fields (name, is_folder, is_loadable, uri), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_browser_tree.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a specific path and want its immediate items, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_browser_tree. There is no mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance is largely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly notes that master/return tracks have no clip slots, which is a behavioral nuance beyond the basic read operation. The verb 'Get' implies no side effects, and the list of returned fields sets accurate expectations, though it doesn't mention error behavior or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences: the first concisely lists what the tool returns, and the second adds a crucial usage note. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the essential aspects of the tool: what it does, what data it returns, and the special master/return behavior. The output schema handles return structure details. The main gap is the lack of clarification for `track_index`, which is a required parameter for complex track specification, making the description slightly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the `track` parameter by showing string examples ('master', 'return:0') and explaining their special semantics. However, the `track_index` parameter is not explained at all, leaving its relationship to `track` ambiguous. Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('track info'), and enumerates the exact data returned (name, mute/solo/arm, volume/pan, clip slots, devices). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the comprehensive track-info getter, and the master/return track special-case note further clarifies scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete guidance on when to use this tool, especially the special-case instructions for inspecting master and return tracks. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize this as the go-to tool for track details.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behaviors: it may focus instead of relaunch, and it waits for the AbletonMCP bridge on :9877. However, it omits failure modes, timeouts, or side effects when opening a new file into an existing session, so the transparency is incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then contextual guidance. Every sentence carries necessary information without redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple launcher tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the launch behavior, the optional .als, the bridge wait, and the intended usage. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the single parameter 'als_path' by saying 'optionally opening a .als,' which clarifies the purpose and file type, while stopping short of specifying path format or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Launch (or focus) Ableton Live 12, optionally opening a .als' and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that operate on an already-running Ableton session. The verb 'Launch' is specific, and the resource and optional extension are explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to start Ableton before composing, or to reopen a saved project.' It implies this is the first tool to call before using any music-manipulation siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the Accessibility requirement and that the control surface bridge survives due to a global preference. However, it does not explicitly warn that the current Live Set may be discarded or that a save prompt might appear, leaving a potentially destructive side effect implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide necessary extra context. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the bridge behavior and accessibility requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless command with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main action, the prerequisite, and an important side effect (bridge survival). It could add a note about unsaved changes, but it is generally adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The 100% schema coverage means the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action as executing 'File ▸ New Live Set (Cmd-N)', indicating a command to create a new Live Set. The phrase 'for a clean slate' reinforces the intended purpose, and this is distinct from sibling tools like save_set or create_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use the tool ('for a clean slate') and a necessary prerequisite ('Requires Accessibility'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'clean slate' purpose and global preference note give reasonable usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. The word 'Diagnostic' implies no state changes, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only or what happens on connection failure. It adds useful context (checking actual loaded version) but could be more explicit about safety and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence, front-loaded with 'Diagnostic', and no filler. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key use case. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so no parameter information is required. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs, matching the baseline for 0-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a diagnostic that confirms the connection and reports the loaded Remote Script version. It uses specific verbs ('confirm', 'report') and names the resource, distinguishing it from the many performance/control sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a concrete use case ('useful after reinstalling the script'), which implies when to verify the actual loaded version. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but its diagnostic nature is unique among siblings, making the context sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key action (opening dialog), the side effect (copying target_path to clipboard), the non-action (does NOT press Render), the return value (remaining steps), and a system requirement (Accessibility). This is a comprehensive and honest description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes essential caveats (confirmation, Accessibility) without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered elsewhere. The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the multi-step export process and the need for user confirmation. However, the missing format_hint semantics and lack of detail about null target_path behavior prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does 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 explains target_path (copied to clipboard for pasting into save sheet), but format_hint is completely unexplained. The description adds meaning for only one of two parameters, leaving the other ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool opens the Export Audio/Video dialog (Cmd-Shift-R), copies target_path to the clipboard, and returns remaining steps. It explicitly notes it does NOT press Render, which distinguishes it from a potential export/rendering tool. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear non-action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this to open the export dialog and prepare the path for pasting, but you must manually confirm the export. It also notes the Accessibility requirement, indicating a prerequisite. No explicit alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, but the intended use is unmistakable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Accessibility requirement and the precondition that the set must already exist on disk. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, failure modes if the set is not saved, or response details, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose and key requirements without any filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter save operation with an output schema present, the description is adequately complete. It covers what the tool does, when it applies, and a key requirement, leaving no critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and none are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as saving the current Set via File ▸ Save (Cmd-S), which is specific and unambiguous. The phrase 'for a Set already saved to disk' distinguishes it from save_set_as and other file operations among the siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: only for sets already saved to disk, and it notes the Accessibility requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives like save_set_as or state exclusions, but the given conditions are enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it produces human-readable deltas, specifies the exact metrics computed, and notes that sub-perceptual changes are suppressed. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but for a read-only comparison tool, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first densely lists the output content, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core function and has zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, usage context, parameter relationship, and output characteristics. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured. It lacks file format or path accessibility details, but these are not essential for this tool's core function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that path_b is relative to path_a ('b relative to a'), establishing the directional relationship between the two audio file parameters. This adds meaning beyond the bare titles 'Path A' and 'Path B'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool diffs two audio files into human-readable deltas, listing specific metrics (loudness, per-band level, brightness, punch, width, dynamics) plus a one-line headline. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_audio, which likely analyzes a single file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage context: 'This is the closed loop's progress meter: capture before/after a parameter move and compare to confirm the change helped.' It clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly describes the return JSON structure and field semantics, including special cases like value_items and display_value. It does not mention error behavior or read-only guarantees, but for a 'get' tool, the return format and targeting details are sufficient and valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and then follows with a structured list of fields and usage guidance. While it is a bit dense, every clause adds necessary information (return format, field semantics, usage workflow). It could be slightly more concise but remains well-organized and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only discovery tool, this description is remarkably complete. It explains what it does, what it returns in detail, how to use it (discover then call set_device_parameter), and how to target special tracks. Given the presence of an output schema, the return-field explanation goes above and beyond, covering gaps that annotations might normally fill.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the track parameter by explaining special values ('master'/'return:N'), but it does not explicitly describe track_index or device_index beyond their schema titles. Given the self-explanatory names and partial description compensation, a score of 3 reflects acceptable but incomplete enhancement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every automatable parameter of a device on a track.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinct purpose, especially compared to siblings like set_device_parameter and get_macros, making the purpose immediately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover what you can change, then call set_device_parameter.' This names an alternative tool and provides a clear workflow context. It also clarifies special target tracks with "track='master'/'return:N' targets those tracks," giving concrete guidance beyond general usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that unspecified attributes are left untouched and that loop positions are expressed in beats. It does not discuss null behavior or marker units, but these are not critical for basic invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by a compact parenthetical list. Every word adds value and there is no repetition of schema titles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a seven-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema description coverage, the description provides enough to select and invoke it correctly by listing all tunable fields and clarifying partial updates. It omits edge-case behavior like whether markers require looping, but the output schema likely covers return values and core semantics are present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description names all five optional parameters and groups them conceptually (looping, loop bounds, markers). The partial-update note gives meaning to the optional/nullable schema parameters, though track_index and clip_index are left entirely to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') plus a clear resource ('a clip's loop attributes') and enumerates the affected attributes. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling clip mutators like set_clip_name or set_clip_color.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It establishes clear context for when to use the tool—any time clip loop attributes need modification—and highlights partial-update semantics ('only the ones you pass are changed'). It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool covers loop-specific attributes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states the effect (mute when on=True, unmute when on=False), which is the core behavior. It does not mention side effects or errors, but for a simple boolean setter, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies the parameter behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states the operation and the key parameter semantics. Additional details like error handling or track validation would be nice but are not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'on' parameter by mapping True to mute and False to unmute. The 'track_index' parameter is self-explanatory from its name, though not explicitly discussed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Mute/unmute) and resource (track), and directly explains the effect of the 'on' parameter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_solo or set_track_arm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states what the tool does, providing clear context for when to use it (whenever a track needs to be muted or unmuted). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: fader position vs dB (0.85 ≈ 0 dB, 1.0 ≈ +6 dB), equivalence of value and value_normalized, and that the reply reports dB. It also explains the master fader behavior, significantly enhancing the agent's understanding beyond a bare 'set volume'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: a single clear action sentence followed by a concise, high-value note. Every sentence adds necessary information (scale mapping, equivalence, output, master fader), with no redundant or tangential content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core: value semantics, output behavior (reply reports dB), and the master fader special case. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the lack of any explanation for track_index, the only required parameter, leaves the overall usage incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to value/value_normalized by stating they are equivalent and explaining the fader range, and it defines track='master'. However, the required track_index parameter is not described at all, leaving ambiguity about its format (zero-based? integer index?). Since schema coverage is 0%, this is a notable gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action and target: 'Set a track's volume fader'. It clarifies the fader position vs dB mapping, distinguishing it from simple volume tools. The special case for track='master' further defines its scope, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling setters like set_track_pan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (volume adjustments) and important usage details like the fader range and master track behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use set_track_pan for panning', so it lacks the full when/why-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the additive nature (notes are not replaced but appended) and provides valid value ranges for note attributes (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity), which is valuable behavioral context. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the key behavioral trait is explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, with the primary action and additive behavior stated first, followed by the note structure. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is clean and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, additive behavior, and full note dict specification. It adequately equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits details about invalid inputs or error behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description significantly compensates for the vague input schema, especially the notes array. It defines each field within a note dict with types and ranges (pitch 0-127, start_time in beats, etc.), which is essential for correct invocation. The track_index and clip_index are self-explanatory from names, so the overall parameter understanding is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('MIDI notes to a clip'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_notes_from_clip by emphasizing the additive behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly communicates usage context by noting 'additive — call repeatedly to build large clips,' which tells the agent this tool is designed for incremental note addition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the supplied index may not be final, so the caller must re-read get_session_info to learn the actual index. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover permissions or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and a follow-up instruction. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a single simple parameter and an output schema, so the description is complete. It explains the index behavior and provides a cross-reference to get_session_info, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains that index=-1 appends at the end, giving meaning to the integer parameter beyond the schema's default. It does not explain other values, but the key special value is covered.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'new MIDI track', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_audio_track and create_return_track by specifying the track type. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by explaining the index=-1 default behavior (append at end) and instructs the agent to re-read get_session_info to discover the real index, implying a verification step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Read'), the output range (0..1), and interpretation guidance (level near 1.0 = too hot). This is sufficient for a simple, side-effect-free read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every sentence adds value, including the practical sampling tip and clipping interpretation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and how to interpret the result, without over-explaining.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('master bus output meter') with a value range (0..1). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_track_meter by focusing on the master bus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: sample while a scene is playing to gauge overall level or spot clipping. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the master vs. track distinction is implicit from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden and discloses the read-only nature, value range, audio-dependent behavior, and sampling recommendation. It does not cover error handling or permission requirements, but these are less critical for a read-only meter tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It is appropriately sized and avoids redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a single parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 'track' parameter. It does so by enumerating valid forms (integer index, 'master', 'return:N'), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic anyOf. The default value is not mentioned, but it is in the schema, so a small deduction applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource (a track's output meter) with the value range and channel breakdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting the 'track' parameter can be an integer index, 'master', or 'return:N', covering capabilities that overlap with tools like get_master_meter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: meters only move while audio plays, with actionable guidance to fire a clip/scene first and sample multiple times. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the behavioral prerequisites are well-stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a reporting tool and enumerates the exact data fields returned (is_playing, record_mode, session_record, current_song_time, tempo, etc.). The verb 'Report' strongly implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the included unit for current_song_time adds useful context. It does not explicitly state side effects, but none are expected for a state query.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Report transport/record state') followed by a concise enumeration of fields and a clear use-case sentence. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully covers the tool's purpose, what it returns (via the listed fields), and when to use it. An output schema exists, so return value structure is properly documented elsewhere. Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and clear differentiation from siblings, this description is complete and self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The schema coverage is 100% (no properties to cover).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Report transport/record state,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It lists the specific state fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_session_info and get_track_info, which report on different targets. The tool is unambiguously a read-only state query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'verify a capture is running' and 'watch the playhead advance.' This gives clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is so distinct from the control-oriented siblings that the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the ON behavior ('With it ON, launching Session clips/scenes records them into the Arrangement timeline') and provides context about why this is needed (export capability). It does not mention overwriting or reversal, but for a simple boolean arm/disarm, the behavior is adequately disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: core function, behavioral effect, and context/alternative. No redundant wording, and the key action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description explains purpose, behavior, and when to use an alternative. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. It is complete enough for confident invocation, though it could mention the 'global' scope more explicitly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping the 'on' parameter through phrases like 'Arm/disarm' and 'With it ON', effectively conveying that true arms and false disarms. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Arm/disarm Arrangement (global) Record'. It then explains the effect (launching Session clips/scenes records them into the Arrangement timeline) and differentiates from capture_session_to_arrangement by name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clearly states when to use: to capture a Session-view loop for export because 'Live's exporter only renders the Arrangement'. Also explicitly recommends capture_session_to_arrangement as the alternative for full automated capture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the write operation, the two value-input alternatives (value and value_normalized), the exact mapping formula for normalized values, and the important caveat that a macro-driven parameter is not writable. It also discloses that the reply includes display_value and whether the write applied, adding significant transparency beyond a bare 'Set parameter'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the parameter identification method, value formats with examples, normalized alternative, exclusivity constraint, and response behavior. It is thorough without being verbose, and every line earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (six parameters, no annotations) the description covers most essential aspects: parameter addressing, value semantics, constraints, and return info. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the description goes further by describing the reply. The only significant omission is the track/device selection parameters, which are not explained but are likely inferable from their names. Overall, it is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the complex parameters: parameter (index or exact name), value (native units with examples for continuous and quantized), and value_normalized (0-1 mapping formula). However, it does not describe track_index, device_index, or track, which are required or relevant parameters, leaving a gap in addressing the target device.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Set one device parameter') and immediately clarifies its purpose ('this is how you change a sound's tone'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_device_enabled or set_macro. It is clear and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'this is how you change a sound's tone' provides clear context for when to use the tool, and the presence of sibling tools like set_macro and set_device_enabled implicitly differentiates it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses UI automation via AppleScript, 'best-effort' nature, the need to verify file existence, and the Accessibility requirement—all important behavioral traits beyond a simple save action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds critical info: the action, the path example, and the caveats (best-effort, verify after, Accessibility). No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter, behavior, permission, and return value (expected_path). The output schema exists, so return details are adequately addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description's example path ('.../projects/<slug>/<Name> Project/<Name>.als') gives format guidance and implicitly maps to als_path, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the function as 'File ▸ Save As to a specific path', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool save_set by emphasizing saving to a specific path, and includes a concrete path example.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies use when a specific path is needed, contrasting with the likely default behavior of save_set. No explicit alternative is named, but the context is clear; it could be more explicit about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: it stops, rewinds, forces Session Record off, arms Arrangement Record, fires a scene, waits, then stops, disarms, restores quantization, and rewinds. It also notes that re-recording overwrites the previous region and explains waiting/max_wait_seconds behavior, offering complete behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a brief intro, numbered steps, and separate parameter explanations. While long, every sentence carries essential operational detail for a complex multi-step tool, and the structure aids scannability. It avoids fluff and front-loads the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 params, multi-step side effects, no annotations), the description is exceptionally complete: it addresses why, how, when, parameter details, side effects, and wait behavior. An output schema exists, so omitting explicit return-value details is acceptable. No significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains every parameter meaningfully: length_beats formula ('bars * time_signature_numerator, e.g. 128 bars of 4/4 = 512'), tail_beats purpose, wait=True/False semantics, max_wait_seconds auto behavior, and tighten_launch effect in step 1. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record a Session scene into the Arrangement so the song can be exported.' It specifies the verb (Record/capture), resource (Session scene into Arrangement), and the why (export needs Arrangement), distinguishing it from lower-level siblings like fire_scene or set_arrangement_record.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly explains when to use: 'Live's Export Audio/Video only renders the Arrangement, so a Session-view loop must first be printed there.' It also provides manual alternatives for wait=False ('then call stop_playback and set_arrangement_record(False) yourself'), and warns about overwriting prior captures, giving clear usage context and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/verove-jordan/ableton12-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server