Skip to main content
Glama

crop_clip

Trim audio clips in Ableton Live by removing regions outside loop boundaries or start/end markers. Simplifies clip editing within the Ableton Copilot MCP server for precise audio control.

Instructions

Crops the clip. The region that is cropped depends on whether the clip is looped or not. If looped, the region outside of the loop is removed. If not looped, the region outside the start and end markers is removed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clip_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the crop_clip tool: retrieves the clip by ID and invokes its crop() method.
    async cropClip({ clip_id }: { clip_id: string }) {
        const clip = getClipById(clip_id)
        await clip.crop()
        return Result.ok()
    }
  • @tool decorator registers the 'crop_clip' tool with its description and input schema (clip_id: string).
    @tool({
        name: 'crop_clip',
        description: `Crops the clip. The region that is cropped depends on whether the clip is looped or not. 
            If looped, the region outside of the loop is removed. If not looped, 
            the region outside the start and end markers is removed.`,
        paramsSchema: {
            clip_id: z.string(),
        }
    })
  • src/main.ts:39-42 (registration)
    ClipTools class containing crop_clip is registered to the MCP server in the tools array passed to startMcp.
    await startMcp({
        // Register tool classes, make decorators available
        tools: [BrowserTools, ClipTools, DeviceTools, HistoryTools, SongTools, TrackTools, ExtraTools, ApplicationTools]
    })
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the cropping logic based on loop status, which is useful, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether this is a destructive mutation (likely yes, given 'crop'), if it requires specific permissions, what happens to the cropped data (e.g., permanent deletion), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies content.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('Crops the clip') and efficiently explains the conditional behavior in two clear sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the cropping logic but omits essential context: the nature of the clip (audio/MIDI), whether the operation is reversible, what the output looks like (e.g., modified clip or success status), and error cases. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 1 parameter (clip_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds no information about the clip_id parameter—it doesn't explain what a clip is, how to obtain its ID, or format requirements. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is higher, but the lack of any parameter guidance limits utility.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Crops the clip' with specific behavior based on whether the clip is looped or not. It distinguishes the action from siblings like 'duplicate_clip_region' or 'set_clip_property' by focusing on removal of regions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'crop' means in this context (e.g., trimming audio/MIDI data), leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool by explaining its behavior with looped vs. non-looped clips, suggesting it's for removing unwanted regions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'duplicate_clip_region' for extraction or 'set_clip_property' for adjustments, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/xiaolaa2/ableton-copilot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server