Skip to main content
Glama
whybothercoding

Ableton Live MCP Server

by whybothercoding
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_properties

Idempotent

Set or update properties on Ableton Live song, track, clip, device, and parameter objects by address, with strict validation and atomic, undoable writes.

Instructions

Set properties on the Song, a Track, Scene, ClipSlot, Clip, Groove, cue point, device, rack chain, drum pad or device PARAMETER (property value, checked against the parameter's own range). A clip's groove is set to a groove address (grooves/N). Addresses: 'song', 'master', 'tracks/N', 'returns/N', 'scenes/N', 'tracks/N/slots/M' (clip slot) and 'tracks/N/slots/M/clip', 'tracks/N/arrangement/M' (arrangement clips in time order), 'tracks/N/take_lanes/K', 'tracks/N/devices/M' (also returns/N and master; then '/parameters/P', '/sample' for a Simpler, '/chains/C/devices/...', '/drum_pads/NOTE', '/mixer/volume'), 'grooves/N' (groove pool), 'cue_points/N' and 'app' (the Live application). Indices are 0-based. A name selector works anywhere a number does, e.g. 'tracks/name:Drift' (exact match; several matches is an error that lists their indices). Values are checked strictly (booleans must be true/false, integers whole numbers, enums given by name; see list_properties). Interdependent properties (e.g. loop_start/loop_end) can be set together in any order, and the call is all-or-nothing: if one write fails, the others are restored. Returns each property's previous and new value. Each call is one undo step in Live. Give address + properties, or items to change several objects in one call. expect ({name}) refuses to write if the object is not the one you meant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsNoSeveral objects at once: [{address, properties, expect?}]
expectNoGuard: {"name": "Drift"} (optionally class_name) must match the object, or nothing is written
addressNoObject address
propertiesNoProperty values, e.g. {"mute": true, "volume": 0.7}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.0.3

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: atomic all-or-nothing writes with rollback, one undo step per call, strict type checking (booleans/integers/enums), interdependent properties settable in any order, name selectors with ambiguous-match errors listing indices, and returns of previous vs new values. This is exactly the extra behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then the contract (atomicity, returns, undo), but the long address enumeration is dense and somewhat list-like. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with only minor redundancy between the atomicity and undo-step sentences.

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?

For a 4-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers target addressing, batching, guarding, validation rules, atomicity, and return values. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline would be 3, but the schema's own parameter descriptions are terse ("Object address", "Property values"). The description compensates heavily by defining the address grammar, the `expect` guard shape, and the `items` batch form, adding real meaning over the structured fields.

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 ("Set properties") and enumerates exactly which resources are writable (Song, Track, Scene, ClipSlot, Clip, Groove, cue point, device, rack chain, drum pad, device PARAMETER). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_properties and list_properties without the agent opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: use `address`+`properties` for one object or `items` for several in one call, use `expect` as a guard, and see list_properties for enum names. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g. preferring batch or device_action for bulk device edits), so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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