Skip to main content
Glama

batch

Destructive

Run multiple Ableton Live tool calls in one round trip and a single undo step, with ordered operations and optional error handling.

Instructions

Run several tools in ONE round trip and ONE undo step (history undo reverts all of it; Live records each device parameter write as its own extra undo entry). ops: [{tool, args}] with each tool's usual arguments, run in order on Live's main thread. Later ops can use earlier results: '$0.address' is the address op 0 returned (a whole-string reference keeps its type, e.g. a number; inside a longer string it is inserted as text; '$1.ids[0]' indexes lists). Example: [{tool:'create',args:{kind:'midi_track',name:'Bass'}},{tool:'device_action',args:{action:'insert',address:'$0.address',name:'Drift'}}]. on_error: stop (default; ops already applied stay applied as one undo step, later ones do not run) or continue. A failure returns BATCH_FAILED with every op's outcome. Up to 100 ops. Batchable tools: get_properties, set_properties, list_properties, describe_set, get_capabilities, get_notes, get_device, create, duplicate, delete, write_notes, edit_notes, clip_action, device_action, routing, draw_automation, get_automation, clear_automation, load_item. Not batchable: transport, launch, history, ramp_parameter, cancel_ramps, record, follow_actions (not undoable edits), transform_notes, generate_notes, browse, analyze_audio_clip and convert (they combine calls or wait).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsYesThe calls, in order
on_errorNoDefault stop

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.3

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations by disclosing undo semantics (history undo reverts all; device parameter writes create extra entries), execution order on the main thread, on_error stop/continue behavior, partial-application consequences, the 100-op cap, and the BATCH_FAILED outcome shape.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and undo constraint are front-loaded, followed by ops format, references, example, error policy, and capability lists. Dense but nearly every clause carries required information; the batchable/not-batchable lists are long yet load-bearing.

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?

With no output schema, the description still documents the failure response (BATCH_FAILED with every op's outcome), execution ordering, reference resolution, and limits. An agent has everything needed to construct a valid batch and predict behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the '$N.field' reference syntax, type preservation for whole-string refs, list indexing, and on_error default/continue semantics. This meaningfully extends the schema's terse field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+benefit: run several tools in one round trip and one undo step. It clearly distinguishes batch orchestration from the individual sibling tools and explains the scoping (undo granularity) that makes it unique.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly lists which tools are batchable and which are not, with reasons (e.g. not undoable edits, they combine calls or wait). An agent can decide membership and routing without inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.