Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ableton12-mcp

ableton12-mcp

by verove-jordan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_device_enabled

Turn a device on or off in Ableton Live by providing track, device index, and on state. Works with master and return tracks.

Instructions

Turn a device on or off (its bypass / 'Device On' switch). track='master'/'return:N' targets those tracks.

Tool call template

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

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "device_index": "<device_index>",
      "on": "<on>"
    },
    "name": "set_device_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
onYes
trackNo
track_indexYes
device_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is 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.

Completeness3/5

Given 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.

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It 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.

Purpose5/5

Does 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 Guidelines4/5

Does 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools