Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ableton12-mcp

ableton12-mcp

by verove-jordan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_set_as

Save the current Ableton Live set to a specific .als file path using the Save As command, returning the expected path for verification.

Instructions

File ▸ Save As to a specific path, e.g. '.../projects// Project/.als'. Drives the macOS save sheet via AppleScript (best-effort) and returns expected_path — verify the file exists afterwards. Requires Accessibility.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "als_path": "<als_path>"
    },
    "name": "save_set_as"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
als_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness5/5

Given 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.

Parameters4/5

Does 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.

Purpose5/5

Does 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 Guidelines4/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools