Adjust a device parameter in a running Ableton Live session by specifying track, device, and parameter indices and the new value.
Set value of a device parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Parameter value | |
| track_index | Yes | 0-indexed track position | |
| device_index | Yes | 0-indexed device position | |
| parameter_index | Yes | 0-indexed parameter position |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers essentially nothing beyond the implied state change. It does not say whether the parameter must exist, how out-of-range indices or values are handled, whether the change is reversible/undoable, or whether it takes effect immediately on a live device.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single six-word sentence with no filler or redundancy, correctly front-loading the action. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness given the tool's four required parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four required parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no information about failure modes, index bounds, or what is returned after the call, all of which matter for a device-mutating operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the four required parameters are already documented as 0-indexed positions and a numeric value. The description adds no additional meaning about valid ranges, units, or normalized vs. raw values, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('value of a device parameter'), so the agent knows the basic operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tools bulk_set_device_parameters or get_device_parameters, leaving ambiguity about single-vs-bulk and read-vs-write selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the bulk alternative, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer from the name alone that this sets one parameter on one device and that the bulk sibling exists for multi-parameter work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.