Ableton MCP Extended

by zabolotniydj

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as get_track_info vs get_track_volume and get_clip_notes vs get_clip_properties. However, get_session_info vs get_session_snapshot and the many clip/set_property variants could cause minor confusion for an agent, but descriptions help resolve them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., set_track_volume, create_clip, fire_scene). Exceptions like undo and redo are simple verbs but acceptable, and list_external_plugins uses a synonymous verb. The pattern is uniform throughout.
Tool Count1/5
With 71 tools, the surface is extreme for any server, even a DAW controller. Many specialized tools (e.g., wavetable-specific ones) could be consolidated without loss of clarity. This exceeds the threshold for an extreme mismatch and will overwhelm agents with choices.
Completeness4/5
The set covers virtually all core Ableton workflows: session/arrangement clips, device management, transport, cue points, scenes, mixing, automation, and browser access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit audio recording or clip movement tool), but agents can work around these.
Average 3.8/5 across 64 of 71 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 doesn't disclose what happens on success or failure (e.g., does it stop playback? does it throw an error if the cue point is not found?). It also doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation or if it modifies state (e.g., changes the current position). The behavior is under-specified.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a parameter list, which is useful. However, the parameter descriptions are terse and could be more informative without adding much length. Overall, it's efficient but could be slightly more detailed.
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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums, no nested objects), the description is somewhat adequate, but it lacks critical context. It doesn't explain the behavior when the cue point is not found, whether the jump is relative to the current position, or how 'next' and 'prev' are determined (e.g., in the arrangement or session view). The output schema exists but is not described, so the agent doesn't know what to expect. For a navigation tool, this is incomplete.
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 lists the two parameters ('direction' and 'name') with brief explanations, but the explanations are minimal. 'direction' says 'next' or 'prev' but doesn't clarify what happens if both are provided or if neither is provided. 'name' says 'Cue point name to jump to' but doesn't clarify if it's required or optional (schema shows default ''). The description adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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: 'Jump to a cue point.' It uses a specific verb ('jump') and resource ('cue point'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_cue_point' and 'delete_cue_point'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_cue_points' or other navigation tools, but the action is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., cue points must exist), nor does it explain the difference between 'next' and 'prev' in context. There is no mention of when not to use it or what happens if the cue point doesn't exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action 'Delete' but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, if it affects undo history, if it requires specific permissions or view state). It also doesn't mention what happens if both clip_index and clip_name are provided or if neither matches. This is a mutation tool with no behavioral disclosure beyond the verb.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clear and each line is informative. No fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points) but it's efficient and readable.
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 tool's complexity (3 params, one required, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (though output schema exists, it's not described), error conditions, or edge cases like invalid indices. It also doesn't clarify the relationship between clip_index and clip_name (which takes precedence). For a destructive operation, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain each parameter: track_index (1-based), clip_index (1-based), clip_name (alternative to clip_index). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has titles and defaults. However, it doesn't clarify precedence when both clip_index and clip_name are given, or how clip_name is matched (exact? case-sensitive?). It's adequate but not thorough.
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 action ('Delete an arrangement clip') and identifies the resource (arrangement clip). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_clip' (which likely deletes session clips) by specifying 'arrangement clip'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_clip' or other deletion tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_clip' or 'clear_notes_from_clip'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist, track must be valid) or context (e.g., arrangement view vs session view). The description implies usage via parameter names but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description does not disclose side effects, such as whether it overwrites or requires empty destination, or any permissions.
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 a single clear sentence with no unnecessary details.
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?
The description is minimal; it does not explain parameter meanings, defaults, or potential behaviors, making it incomplete for a tool with four parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the parameters; schema also lacks descriptions, so parameter semantics are unclear.
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 clearly states the action (copy) and the resource (session clip to arrangement), distinguishing it from other clip-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or whether the tree is static or dynamic. The description only states what the tool does without adding context about behavior beyond the basic retrieval.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clearly separated, but the structure could be improved by formatting the parameter list more explicitly within the description, though it is still easy to read.
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?
There is an output schema, so return values are likely covered. The tool is relatively simple with one parameter, but it lacks guidance on usage context and any behavioral caveats. It is complete enough for a basic retrieval tool but misses opportunities to clarify relationships with sibling tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% because the schema has no descriptions for the parameter. However, the description explicitly lists the allowed values for 'category_type', which adds semantic detail beyond the schema. This is a modest compensation for the schema gap, but the parameter is simple and self-explanatory.
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 states the tool gets a hierarchical tree of browser categories from Ableton, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_browser_items_at_path' by focusing on the category tree rather than items at a path.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. It only lists the parameter options, but does not clarify when to use this over 'get_browser_items_at_path' or other browser-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or what 'detailed information' includes. It doesn't state whether the tool is read-only or if it might fail for certain track types. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about behavior beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a parameter list, which is helpful. However, it repeats the parameter name and type from the schema, which is redundant. The structure is clear, but the parameter section could be integrated more efficiently.
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 that there is an output schema (though not shown in the input), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the tool is part of a large set of Ableton control tools, and the description lacks context about what 'detailed information' includes, how it relates to other getters, or any limitations. The description is minimal and doesn't provide enough context for an agent to know when to use it effectively.
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 description includes a parameter section that explains 'track_index: Track number (1-based).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only lists the type and title. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes a valid track index (e.g., range, handling of out-of-bounds) or how the index relates to the track order. With only one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description provides some value but could be more detailed.
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: 'Get detailed information about a specific track in Ableton.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('track information'), and the tool name 'get_track_info' aligns well. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_track_volume' and 'get_track_deletion_status' by focusing on general track info, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where this tool is preferred over other getters like 'get_track_volume' or 'get_session_info'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, such as needing a valid track index or that it works only in session view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the change is reversible, if it affects playback, or if it requires specific permissions. It also doesn't mention what happens if the track index is invalid. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a parameter list, which is useful. No unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.
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 that there is an output schema (though not shown in the input), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, the tool is a mutation with no annotations, and the description lacks important context like error handling, prerequisites, or side effects. The parameter semantics are minimal. For a simple tool, it might be acceptable, but it's incomplete for robust agent use.
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 description lists the parameters with brief explanations: 'track_index: Track number (1-based)' and 'name: The new name for the track.' This adds some meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types. However, the schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does provide basic semantics. It could be more detailed (e.g., constraints on name length or format), but it's adequate.
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: 'Set the name of a track.' It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (track name), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_panning, but the purpose is unambiguous enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if the track must exist or if there are constraints on the name. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects or preconditions, but it only states the action without mentioning any impact on the session state, toggling behavior, or error conditions.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the function without unnecessary words or complexity.
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?
The description lacks contextual details such as what happens if playback is already active, whether it resets position, or any prerequisites. Given the absence of annotations, this leaves the tool's behavior incomplete.
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?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: starting playback in the Ableton session. It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling actions like stop_playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fire_clip, start_playback vs. others). No context or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are providedcars, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states
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?
The description is compact but includes a parameter list. It could be trimmed slightly, but it's efficient and front-loaded with the purpose line.
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?
Moderately complete for a mutating tool: all params explained, but no return values (output schema exists), no error cases, no use case. A 3 is fair given the decent param explanations but missing operational context.
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 0%, so the description must fully document parameters. It does: explains 1-based indexing, default device=1, chain_index 0 meaning no chain, partial match for names, value 0-1. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types/defaults.
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?
'Set a device parameter value' is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_panning by targeting device parameters specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or limitations. The description provides no context on when this is the appropriate tool compared to other parameter-setting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 does not state that this is a read-only or mutating operation, though 'Stop' implies a mutation of playback state. It also lacks information about side effects, such as whether it resets the playback position or stops all clips. This is a simple tool, but the lack of any behavioral details beyond the single verb is a gap.
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 a single, concise sentence that exactly states the tool's action. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is appropriately short for such a simple tool.
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?
The tool is simple, and there is an output schema provided, so the return value is likely documented there. The description does not specify the effect on current playback (e.g., does it stop just the session or also stop all clips?), which could be important for an agent to know. However, for a stop action, the purpose is clear enough. The description is missing some context about side effects, but overall it is adequate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no properties). The baseline for 0 params is often 4, but since there are no parameters to explain, the description doesn't need to add any parameter info. However, the description doesn't add any context about return values or arguments; it's minimal but sufficient. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is reasonable, as there is nothing to add but also nothing missing.
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 states the action clearly: 'Stop playing the Ableton session.' This is direct and specific about what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'stop_clip', which likely stops a clip rather than the session, but the resource ('session') is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'stop_clip' or 'start_playback'. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a session must be playing or if it can be called anytime. It also doesn't clarify the difference between stopping the session and stopping a clip, which could be confused.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'create an empty MIDI clip' without explaining whether it overwrites existing clips, requires a MIDI track, or any other side effects. The parameter hints about positioning but not behavioral consequences.
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 concise with a single purpose sentence and a structured parameter list. No wasted words; the information is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
The description covers parameter semantics well, and an output schema exists, but it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs alternatives, what happens to existing clips, whether notes can be added later). For a tool with six parameters in a complex DAW environment, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.
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?
The schema has zero descriptions, so the tool description compensates with clear explanations for each parameter, including 1-based indexing and precedence rules (start_bar takes precedence over start_beat). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.
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 creates an empty MIDI clip in the arrangement, which differentiates it from audio clip creation (create_arrangement_audio_clip) and generic clip creation (create_clip). However, it does not explicitly mention these alternatives or exclusions, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_arrangement_audio_clip or create_clip. It also lacks any mention of prerequisites (e.g., MIDI track must exist) or when not to use it. The parameter list implies usage but does not provide context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool creates or clears automation envelopes, which implies a mutating effect, but does not disclose consequences like whether existing automation is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or if it requires specific permissions. The description also does not mention what happens with 'clear_all' (e.g., all parameters vs a specific one). This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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?
The description is concise, with a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. Each parameter line is short and informational. It could be slightly more compact by moving parameter details to the schema, but the structure is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though its content is not detailed). The description covers all parameters with basic definitions but misses critical context: the precedence of clip_name vs clip_index, the behavior of clear_all, and what the output schema represents. For a mutating tool with no annotation safety net, this is incomplete but not severely under-specified.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for each parameter (track_index: Track number, clip_index: Clip position, etc.) and gives examples for parameter_name. However, it does not explain the interaction between clip_index and clip_name (e.g., which takes precedence) or enumerate accepted values for action beyond the three listed. The description adds some value over the bare schema but lacks depth.
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 creates or clears automation envelopes on arrangement clips, using specific verbs ('create', 'clear') and resources ('arrangement clips'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_clip and set_clip_property, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The scope is well-defined.
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 lists the action parameter with allowed values ('create', 'clear', 'clear_all') but does not explain when to use each action, when to prefer clip_index vs clip_name, or how this tool relates to similar ones like set_clip_property. Some usage context is implied by the action values, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that playback is started, which is transparent, but it does not disclose potential side effects like stopping other clips or whether it is non-destructive. For a simple action, this is minimally adequate.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. There is no redundant or extraneous information.
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?
Given the simplicity of the action, the description is adequate. It does not address error handling or effects on current playback, but such details are not critical for such a basic operation.
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 description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (type, required status, titles). Since the schema covers both parameters fully, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action (start playing) and the resource (a clip), which distinguishes it from the sibling stop_clip. However, it is terse and does not explicitly mention the track context, though that is implied by the parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that stop_clip is the inverse operation or that starting a clip may affect current playback state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the action but omits details like whether the operation is destructive (overwrites existing name), whether it requires a specific session state (e.g., clip must be loaded), or if the changes take effect immediately. This lack of behavioral disclosure is notable for a tool that modifies state.
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?
The description is compact, with a single clear sentence and a bulleted parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and then details params. This is efficient, though it could arguably omit the parameter list since the schema provides that, but it adds the 1-based note. For that reason, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though none is shown here), the description covers the basics. However, there is no mention of what happens if the index is invalid, if the operation can fail, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this lack of error-handling context makes it incomplete. The sibling tools offer similar operations, but it's not clear how this interacts with other clip modifications.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does, by explaining each parameter: track_index is 1-based, clip_index is 1-based, and name is the new name. While this is concise, it adds clarity over the schema, which just lists types. However, it doesn't provide format constraints on 'name' (e.g., length, allowed characters), so it's not a perfect 5.
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 verb ('Set') and the resource ('the name of a clip'), which is specific. It lists the necessary parameters with brief explanations. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_clip_property, which might also be able to set a clip's name, so it loses a point for not offering definitive differentiation.
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 it (when you want to rename a clip) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives like set_clip_property. It also doesn't clarify any prerequisites, such as whether the clip must exist or whether the track must be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Add' without clarifying whether notes are appended to existing clip content or replace it. It also omits error conditions, required clip existence, and any destructive potential, which is significant for a mutating tool.
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 short, front-loaded with a clear purpose, and then lists parameters in a clean, scannable format. Every line earns its place with no filler.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is not complete enough: it leaves unclear whether notes are merged or overwritten, and it omits timing/unit semantics needed for correct MIDI note creation. Even though an output schema exists, the invocation semantics are still underspecified.
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?
The description adds useful meaning beyond the raw schema by explaining 1-based indexing and the expected fields inside each note dictionary (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute). However, it does not specify units or value formats for pitch, start_time, duration, or velocity.
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 ('Add') and resource ('MIDI notes to a clip'), clearly stating what the tool does. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like clear_notes_from_clip, replace_notes_in_clip, and get_clip_notes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling note-editing tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided, which matters given the many closely related clip operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does add useful post-condition information by reporting which device parameters appear afterward and whether matrix amounts become automatable parameters. However, it does not disclose side effects, error cases, or reversibility for this mutating operation, so transparency is partial.
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 compact and well organized: one purpose sentence, one result-explanation sentence, and a clear bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary repetition or filler.
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?
The description covers the core purpose, parameter details, and a hint about the return value, which makes invocation feasible. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks usage alternatives, prerequisites, and edge-case behavior, so completeness is only adequate.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all five parameters with 1-based semantics, clarifies parameter_name can be used instead of parameter_index, and explains chain_index 0 means not in a rack. It lacks some detail about precedence when both parameter_name and parameter_index are supplied, but it is substantially helpful.
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 action: making a parameter a modulation target in Wavetable's matrix. It identifies the exact resource and operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like set_wavetable_modulation or set_wavetable_property, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter-selection guidance (parameter_name or parameter_index) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as requiring a Wavetable device to be loaded. This leaves usage context largely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of exposing side effects, permissions, or state changes. It only states the basic action without mentioning any side effects, such as how the track is added to the session or what happens if the index is out of range.
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 concise and to the point, with a clear sentence for the tool's purpose and a separate explanation for the parameter. No unnecessary information or redundancy.
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?
The description is very sparse. It does not mention return values (even though the tool likely returns something), side effects, or any related context. Given that the tool creates an audio track, more detail about what happens to the track or how it integrates with the session would be expected.
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?
The parameter 'index' is well-documented: the description clarifies that -1 means end of list, which complements the schema's default value. This is clear and sufficient for a single parameter.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a new audio track. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_midi_track and create_scene by specifying the track type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer create_audio_track over create_midi_track or other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state what happens when creating a clip (e.g., overwrite behavior if the slot is occupied, whether the clip is empty, what the return value is, or whether any setup like an armed track is required). The parameter-level details given are helpful but do not reveal the mutation's operational behavior.
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?
One clear lead sentence followed by a minimal parameter list with no fluff or redundancy. Every line earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.
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?
For a creation tool with an output schema present, the description adequately documents purpose and parameters. However, it omits context on behavioral outcomes—such as whether the default clip is empty or auto-populated, or what happens on conflict—leaving an agent without enough information to predict the effect of the call in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with meaningful detail: 1-based indexing for both track_index and clip_index, units in beats for length, and a default value of 4.0. This is essential information the schema alone does not convey.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('MIDI clip') and adds scope with 'in the specified track and clip slot,' which helps distinguish it from siblings like create_arrrangement_midi_clip. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with these sibling tools, so it just misses top marks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_arrangement_midi_clip or add_notes_to_clip. The 1-based parameter hints imply a clip-slot (Session) context, but no explicit when/when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Delete a device' which implies a destructive action, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it is undoable, if it affects clips or audio routing, or if it deletes the device permanently). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a bullet list of parameters. No redundant or filler content. Every line adds value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the operation, the description covers the core usage. However, it lacks edge-case guidance such as error behavior (e.g., when device index is out of range, or when device_name is ambiguous). For a destructive tool, more context on prerequisites or consequences would improve completeness.
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?
The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: it specifies that track_index and device_index are 1-based, and clarifies that device_name is an alternative to device_index. This helps the agent understand how to choose between parameters. However, it does not explain what happens if both device_index and device_name are provided, or if neither is given (beyond the schema defaults).
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 'Delete a device from a track', specifying the verb (delete) and resource (device on a track). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_track or delete_clip by focusing on devices. No ambiguity about what it does, but it could explicitly mention it removes a single device, which is implied.
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 usage: you call it when you want to remove a device from a track. It provides parameter guidance (index vs name) but does not explicitly mention alternatives like disable_device or enable_device, nor does it state when not to use it. Because the tool is straightforward, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable but not exceptional.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the burden is on the description. It does disclose in plain terms that the operation deletes 'everything in that row,' which is valuable side-effect information for a destructive tool. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as reversibility (undo support), confirmation flows, or the meaning of 'row' in the UI context, which would be especially valuable given the tool's destructive nature.
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 extremely economical: one front-loaded, information-dense first sentence followed by a clearly formatted parameter line. Every word earns its place, and there is zero fluff or redundancy. The format makes key safety information (cascading delete, 1-based indexing) immediately scannable without restating the schema.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core essential detail of cascade deletion and indexing. However, given its destructive nature and the existence of related tools (fire_scene, delete_track, duplicate_scene), the description would be more complete with a brief safety note (e.g., 'This cannot be undone') or a clarification of the 'row' concept. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself remains minimal.
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?
The schema provides no description coverage (0%), so the description must carry the parameter-meaning burden. It does so effectively by clarifying that scene_index is the scene number and, importantly, that it is 1-based. This disambiguates the indexing convention, which is a common source of off-by-one errors and is not present in the schema. The description adds clear practical value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('scene'), and adds meaningful scope with 'and everything in that row,' which distinguishes it from similar scene-related operations like fire_scene or duplicate_scene. It clearly communicates the cascading delete behavior, which is the most important differentiator. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the irreversible and destructive scope of the row.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, contrast it with create_scene/duplicate_scene/fire_scene, or warn about prerequisites (e.g., stopping playback first). It relies entirely on the name and context for usage decisions. While the destructive nature is implied by 'delete,' no practical guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful context (track_index is 1-based, return tracks come after session tracks, mute semantics for the boolean). However, it omits details about error behavior, invalid index handling, or whether this affects live/stopped playback, which matters for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is tight: a one-line purpose statement followed by compact parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter bullet points duplicate what could theoretically live in the schema had it been richer.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter setter with an output schema present, the description covers the core semantics adequately. The main gaps are lack of usage scenarios and error/edge-case behavior, but for low complexity, this is reasonably complete.
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 0% with bare type-only schema entries, so the description does the heavy lifting. It clarifies track_index is 1-based with specific ordering semantics, and explains the mute boolean's true/false meaning. This meaningfully compensates for the minimal schema.
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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Mute or unmute a track') that clearly identifies the action and target. It's distinguishable from siblings like set_track_volume and set_track_panning, though it doesn't explicitly call out how it differs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like set_track_volume or set_track_arm. There's no when/when-not context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives anywhere in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. No mention of what happens on success or failure.
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 extremely concise: a single action line and a bulleted parameter list. No filler or redundancy, and the action is front-loaded.
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?
Given its simplicity, the description is adequate for a basic create operation, but it lacks context on when to use it and behavioral details. It doesn't mention the output (though an output schema exists) or relationship to other cue point tools, making it only minimally complete.
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?
The description adds value by clarifying that bar is 1-based and beat is 0-based, which is not in the schema. It also names each parameter. However, it does not explain defaults (e.g., bar defaults to 0 despite being 1-based) or constraints, leaving some gaps.
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 explicitly states 'Create a cue point at a position,' which is a clear, specific verb-resource pair. It is distinct from siblings like get_cue_points (retrieve), jump_to_cue_point (navigate), and delete_cue_point (remove).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it adds a marker for navigation, nor does it reference related tools like get_cue_points or delete_cue_point. There is no exclusions or context about typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., changes to scene indices, undo behavior, or impact on content) or any requirements. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single clear sentence followed by a parameter explanation. Every word earns its place; no 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?
While the tool has an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description does not mention what the operation returns or any consequences on the scene list. For a simple single-param tool, it is adequate but could be more complete regarding behavioral outcomes or prerequisites.
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?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying 'Scene number (1-based),' which clarifies the parameter's purpose and indexing convention. Schema coverage is 0%, so this detail is necessary and adequately provided.
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 clearly states the action: 'Duplicate a scene' and adds a specific detail 'inserting the copy directly below it.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_scene, delete_scene, and get_scenes. Purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_scene or duplicate_clip_to_arrangement. The description only implies usage through the nature of the operation; it lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 adds the path format detail (category/folder/subfolder) which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether this is safe/read-only (implied by 'Get'), what happens on an invalid path, or how the output behaves, though the has-output-schema flag mitigates the gap.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: a single clear action sentence followed immediately by a useful parameter breakdown. The 'Parameters:' section is slightly redundant with the schema, but it earns its place by documenting the format, keeping the whole thing efficient with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essentials — action, path format, and source of valid categories. However, it doesn't clarify where the list of valid categories comes from (possibly `get_browser_tree`), and it omits error behavior or what an empty result means. Adequate but with room to close the loop for an agent.
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 description coverage is 0% — the schema only declares `path` as a string. The description compensates well by specifying the exact format 'category/folder/subfolder' and clarifying that category comes from available Ableton browser categories, adding real meaning beyond the schema.
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 opening sentence — 'Get browser items at a specific path in Ableton's browser' — uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the operation. The phrase 'at a specific path' differentiates it from browsing the whole tree, though it doesn't explicitly name or distinguish from the sibling `get_browser_tree`.
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?
Usage is implied: you call this when you already have a specific path in mind. The path format guidance ('category/folder/subfolder') gives context, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or mention of alternatives like `get_browser_tree` or `get_browser_tree`'s relationship, which would help an agent decide between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb "Get" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not state what exactly is included in the session information, nor does it explicitly confirm no side effects.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence contains exactly the necessary identifying information. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a no-argument getter with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: return values are presumably covered by the schema, and the action is clear. The main missing piece is usage context relative to sibling tools, but this is a simple enough tool that the description remains sufficient.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% description coverage, so there is no parameter burden. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly references the current session as the implicit context.
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?
"Get detailed information about the current Ableton session" clearly identifies a retrieval action with a specific resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling info getters like get_track_info or get_arrangement_info, and "detailed information" is somewhat broad.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling getters such as get_track_info, get_arrangement_info, or get_scenes. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 does not explain side effects, whether it affects only the clip or global playback, what happens if the clip is not playing, or any prerequisites. The minimal statement lacks this context.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The one-line purpose and compact parameter list contain no filler, and every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks context about how this differs from stop_playback, whether it is non-destructive, and what the output schema represents. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but usage and behavioral context are still missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: track_index as a 1-based track number and clip_index as a 1-based clip slot number. This adds meaningful indexing semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though it could provide more detail about valid ranges or clip slot meaning.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop playing a clip.' It is distinguishable from sibling tools like fire_clip (start playing) and stop_playback (global stop) because it targets a specific clip.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stop_playback or fire_clip. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior—undoing the last action—but does not disclose edge cases such as whether repeated calls undo multiple actions, whether there is an undo history limit, or whether the operation can be reversed. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, compact sentence: 'Undo the last action in Live.' It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple, parameterless tool, and the description covers its primary purpose. An output schema exists to handle return-value details. However, it omits context about undo history semantics (e.g., multiple undo steps, interaction with redo), which would make it fully complete for an agent.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, which is fully described. According to the rubric, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there is nothing to parameterize.
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 function: 'Undo the last action in Live.' This is a specific verb ('Undo') and resource ('the last action in Live'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'redo' or other state-changing tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference related tools such as 'redo' or explain the undo history behavior. Only the implied purpose of undoing is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action and parameters. It does not disclose whether existing clips are overwritten, whether the track must be an audio track, what happens if the file path is invalid, or whether the operation is reversible.
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 front-loaded with the core action and followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence and parameter entry adds some information, with no filler or repetition.
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?
With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no explanation of defaults or coordinate conventions, the description is too incomplete for reliable invocation. The 1-based start_bar versus default 0 conflict, plus unclear semantics of start_beat, are significant gaps.
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 description adds useful meaning beyond the bare schema, such as 1-based indexing for track_index and start_bar and 'beats' for start_beat. However, start_beat is essentially tautological ('start position in beats'), and start_bar's 1-based claim conflicts with the schema default of 0, leaving ambiguity.
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 opens with a specific action: 'Place an audio file as a clip in the arrangement.' This clearly names the resource, destination, and result, and distinguishes it from siblings like create_arrangement_midi_clip and create_clip.
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?
The phrase 'in the arrangement' and 'audio file' clearly indicate the intended context versus session clips or MIDI arrangement clips. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the direct action without detailing side effects, permissions, error conditions, or reversibility. It does not disclose whether the operation modifies the session in a way that could require cleanup or have undo implications.
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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The structure is direct and effective.
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?
While the action and parameters are clear, the description lacks contextual information about when to use this tool compared to similar loading tools like load_instrument_or_effect. It is adequate for a simple operation but incomplete in guiding selection among alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have precise descriptions in the schema: track_index (1-based), rack_uri (example given), and kit_path (example given). The descriptions fully clarify the expected inputs, making the schema self-sufficient.
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 clearly states what the tool does: loads a drum rack and then a specific drum kit into it. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like load_instrument_or_effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when it is appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 lists parameter meanings but does not disclose side effects, whether it modifies only specified properties, or how it handles invalid track/clip indices. This is a mutating tool with almost no behavioral context beyond the name.
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 a single introductory sentence followed by a compact bullet list of parameters. Each parameter entry is necessary and informative without redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
The tool has 14 parameters and no annotations, so the description needs to provide operational context. It covers parameter semantics well but omits how properties interact, whether clip_name takes precedence, error behavior, and return values. The description is a solid parameter reference but not a complete usage guide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so comprehensively by explaining all 14 parameters, including data types, units (1-based indices, 0x00RRGGBB color), ranges (gain 0.0-1.0, pitch -48 to 48), and the relationship between clip_name and clip_index. This fully addresses the schema's lack of 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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Set' with the resource 'arrangement clip', and the parameter list clarifies the exact properties involved. The 'arrangement' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling set_clip_property, which likely targets session clips.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like set_clip_property or get_clip_properties. The description does not mention dependencies, required conditions, or explicit alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter; it does not mention valid BPM ranges, whether setting tempo affects playback, or any side effects such as timeline changes. This is a mutation tool with no warning or contextual behavior.
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 remarkably concise: one action sentence plus a clear parameter listing. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details beyond the essential unit clarification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. The only notable gap is the absence of a valid tempo range (e.g., Ableton's 20-999 BPM), which could lead an agent to attempt an invalid value. The role and unit are covered, and no nested complexity exists.
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 0%; the description compensates by explaining 'tempo: The new tempo in BPM', adding the unit (BPM) and semantic role ('new tempo') that the schema lacks. It does not specify an allowable range, but for a single parameter it adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('Set') and resource ('the tempo of the Ableton session'), making the tool's single responsibility unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_track_volume and set_track_name because none of them target tempo.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. While the action is obvious from the name, the description does not offer context such as 'use this for global session tempo' or mention any relation to get_session_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action and how to select the track, but does not mention irreversibility, failure behavior for unknown track names/indexes, or side effects beyond deletion.
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 a single-purpose opening sentence followed by a compact parameter list; every line adds useful information and no filler is present.
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?
For a simple destructive tool with two parameters, the description is mostly usable, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, with no annotations it could be more complete by stating error handling or permanence, so it stops short of fully contextual.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that track_index is 1-based, 0 resolves by name, track_name is an alternative, and track_index takes priority when both are supplied. This adds substantial meaning, though the interaction between a zero index and the 'priority' rule is slightly underspecified.
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 ('Delete') and identifies the exact resource ('track from the Ableton session'), distinguishing it from sibling deletion tools targeting clips, devices, cue points, and scenes.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and purpose statement—use this when removing a track—but the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Parameter-resolution guidance is present, but tool-selection direction is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects, idempotency, what happens if the device is already enabled, or whether the operation affects the device's chain or rack state beyond enabling the device.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a focused parameter list. Every line adds useful information with no filler.
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?
The parameter details make it minimally usable, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not required. However, the tool has no annotations and the description omits behavioral edge cases, such as behavior for already-enabled devices or invalid indices, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutating device operation.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description documents all parameters with meaningful semantics: 1-based indices, the use of 0 with device_name, and chain_index behavior. This compensates well for the empty schema descriptions, though it leaves minor ambiguity about how device_index and device_name interact when both are provided.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Enable (activate) a device on a track." This clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from siblings like disable_device and 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The purpose statement implies the tool is for enabling/activating a device, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or what conditions should be checked first. The behavioral contrast with disable_device is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to describe side effects (e.g., does it change the current preset? does 'current' merely return the preset?), error conditions, or what happens at boundaries (first/last preset). The handling of chain_index=0 is noted but not its behavior. Transparency is insufficient for a mutating navigation tool.
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 compact: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant or filler text. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity (4 parameters, navigation semantics) with no annotations. While an output schema exists, the description omits critical context: what 'current' means, whether the operation mutates state, boundary behavior, and potential side effects. The description is not complete enough for an agent to predict tool behavior in edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare input schema. It explains that track_index is 1-based, device_index defaults to 1, chain_index=0 means no chain, and direction accepts 'next', 'previous', or 'current'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Navigate device presets' with specific direction values (next/previous/current). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_parameters or set_device_parameter, which handle parameter access rather than preset navigation.
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 usage by listing direction options and target addressing (track, device, chain). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions like when a device has no presets or when using 'current' might be a query versus a mutation. Usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation. It doesn't mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects. The description only states the action and parameter meanings, which are more about parameter semantics than behavior.
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 compact: one purpose sentence plus two parameter lines. No redundancy, no fluff. It's well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains both parameters and the action. However, it does not mention any constraints like error handling, prerequisites, or what happens with invalid track indices, which leaves some ambiguity. But given the simplicity, it's mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does so fully: track_index is defined as 1-based track number, and panning is given a clear range with semantic labels (full left, center, full right). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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 clearly states the action: 'Set the mixer panning for a track' – a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like set_track_volume by naming panning specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_volume or set_track_mute. It does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent gets no context about when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core behavior (removing notes) and clarifies that the clip itself remains. However, it does not mention what happens to other clip data (e.g., automation, envelopes) or whether the operation only applies to MIDI clips. This is acceptable for a simple tool but lacks deeper side-effect disclosure.
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 exceptionally concise: a one-sentence overview followed by two parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the action, contains no filler, and is well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the action and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema likely covers return value details, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It does not mention potential error conditions, but that is not critical for a straightforward operation.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameters. It provides concise definitions: 'Track number (1-based)' and 'Clip slot number (1-based).' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's types and titles, though it could be richer (e.g., valid ranges, dependencies between parameters).
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Remove every MIDI note from a Session clip, leaving the clip in place.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'leaving the clip in place' distinguishes it from destructive clip operations (e.g., delete_clip). This is concise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions 'leaving the clip in place,' it does not directly state when this should be preferred over other clip manipulation tools (e.g., replace_notes_in_clip, add_notes_to_clip). The agent must infer the usage context from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (disable/bypass) but offers no information on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or how the device state changes beyond being disabled. The description is too sparse to give the agent confidence about consequences or prerequisites.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list with inline details. Every sentence and bullet adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the primary action. Zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information needed to invoke the tool: purpose, parameter semantics, and defaults. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., device not found, track missing) or prerequisites, but these are secondary. Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be detailed, and the description is sufficiently complete for most uses.
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?
The description adds essential meaning to each parameter, including 1-based indexing for track_index and device_index, the use of 0 for device_index when device_name is provided, and the chain_index default. This goes beyond the bare schema, which only lists titles with no descriptions, and compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It is clear, though it could be slightly more explicit about parameter precedence.
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 opens with a specific and unambiguous purpose: 'Disable (bypass) a device on a track.' This clearly identifies the verb (disable/bypass), the resource (device on a track), and semantically distinguishes the tool from siblings like enable_device (opposite) and delete_device (removal). No tautology or vagueness.
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 usage context—disabling or bypassing a device—but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as enable_device or delete_device. With sibling tools available, an agent could infer intent, but no exclusions or tricks are given, so it earns a middle score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose side effects, such as whether the track's existing devices are replaced or if the load fails, nor does it describe how errors are reported. It only states what it does, which is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.
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 concise and to the point. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, then lists parameters with brief explanations and an example. No redundant or filler content.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and an output schema present (has output schema: true). However, the description does not explain what the output schema entails, nor does it mention potential failure conditions or how to obtain valid URIs. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or typical usage flow, which could be helpful.
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 0%, but the description explicitly explains both parameters: track_index as 1-based track number and uri with an example format. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides names and types. The example URI clarifies the expected format.
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: 'Load an instrument or effect onto a track using its URI.' It specifies the action (load), the object (instrument/effect), and the target (a track). It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_external_plugin' and 'load_drum_kit' by generically handling instrument/effect URIs, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.
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?
The description implies usage context: it is for loading instruments or effects onto tracks using URI, which are typically obtained from browser tools (like get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path). It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like load_external_plugin or load_drum_kit, but the phrase 'instrument or effect' gives some clarity. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. The description simply states the action and lists view options, but doesn't disclose any side effects (e.g., it changes the main UI view) or whether it's purely cosmetic. It's minimally transparent, but for a simple view switch it's arguably sufficient. However, it could mention that this affects the main window globally. I'll score 3.
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?
Very short: one sentence plus parameter description. Concise and front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parametercars provided for values. Output schema exists so return details not needed. It's complete enough for a view switcher. Could mention effect on current selection or undo, but not necessary.
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?
The schema only says 'string' with a default. The description provides the valid values ('Arranger', 'Session', etc.) and meaning ('View name'), filling in the 0% coverage gap. This is valuable guidance beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Switch Ableton's main view.' This is a specific verb+resource that makes the purpose unambiguous. It also lists the valid view options, which further clarifies the scope and distinguishes it from other tools that operate on tracks, clips, or playback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains the action without context, such as when switching views is preferable or any prerequisites, missing explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the non-obvious side effect that writing tempo/time signature switches scene control on, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know. Without annotations, this note adds real value, though other effects (e.g., validation, overwrite semantics) are not covered.
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?
The description is well-organized with a clear summary followed by a bulleted list of parameters and a key behavioral note. It earns its length, although the Parameters section partially overlaps with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter with three parameters, the description covers the main intent, the exact property names, the indexing convention, and the enable side-effect, and an output schema is present. Minor gaps remain around value constraints and error behavior, so it's not a 5.
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?
Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description enumerates the writable property names and clarifies that scene_index is 1-based, adding meaning beyond the bare type definitions. It falls short of specifying allowed value domains/ranges for each property.
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?
Clearly identifies the action (set) and target (a scene's name, colour, tempo, or time signature), and lists writable property names. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling set_tempo, but 'a scene's' scopes it appropriately.
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?
Usage context is implied by the list of writable properties and the note about enabling scene control, but there is no explicit when/where-not guidance or reference to alternative tools such as set_tempo or fire_scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a MIDI track is created and does not describe side effects, default track properties, selectability behavior, failure modes, or whether the operation is undoable.
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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a parameter bullet. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional, well-documented parameter and an output schema available. The description adequately covers what the tool does and the index semantics. It could be slightly richer by noting side effects, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining the single parameter: 'index: The index to insert the track at (-1 = end of list).' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare integer type and default.
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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Create a new MIDI track in the Ableton session.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_audio_track and create_clip by specifying the track type.
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—when creating a MIDI track—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is no guidance such as 'use create_audio_track for audio tracks' or any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the delete action and parameter semantics, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, irreversibility, or prerequisites. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, earning a 2.
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 extremely concise, with a single main sentence and two parameter lines. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with two parameters and an output schema (though not provided), the description covers the essential functionality. It lacks information about behavior when the cue point does not exist or is invalid, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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 explicitly explains both parameters: 'bar' as 1-based and 'beat' as 0-based, adding meaning beyond the raw schema properties and defaults. This fully clarifies their semantics.
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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a cue point at a position.' It specifies the verb (delete) and resource (cue point), and the positional targeting via bar and beat distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_cue_point' and 'jump_to_cue_point'.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the simple action of deleting a cue point is self-evident from the name and description. There is no comparison or exclusion of other tools, so it scores 3 as a minimum viable usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or side effects. The transport state mention adds context, but overall it is sparse.
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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes a clear parameter section. No extraneous info; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It provides enough for a simple getter with one parameter, but lacks any mention of prerequisites or edge cases. It is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description fully explains the sole parameter: track_index with 1-based indexing and 0 meaning all tracks. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's plain integer declaration.
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 clearly states it gets arrangement clips and transport state, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from similar tools like get_track_info and get_session_info by focusing on arrangement view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions or specific contexts, and fails to differentiate when to use get_arrangement_info over other getters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description says this is a write operation ('set'), but doesn't disclose whether send slots are reused/overwritten, or if validation/errors occur when the track isn't a return track. It identifies only the direct state change.
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?
Single complete sentence with all key parameters; no redundancy or filler.
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?
Output schema exists, but the description doesn't describe the return format or response semantics. Sufficient parameter documentation exists for the primary operation; missing preconditions and side-effect info.
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?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema: track_index is 1-based and send_index explicitly maps to return tracks (1 feeds return A, 2 feeds B). The value meaning (normalized 0.0-1.0) is specified, which the raw schema does not convey.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'set' with a clear resource (send level) and distinguishes from siblings by naming send slot mapping; no ambiguity about the operation.
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?
States what it does and names the parameters, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative context is given (e.g., adjusting track volume would be set_track_volume).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists actions without explaining side effects (e.g., zoom changes visible range, follow_on auto-scrolls). It also doesn't mention error handling or behavior for invalid track indexes. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.
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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structurally clear. It lists parameters in a readable format with brief explanations. Every sentence contributes value without extraneous detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage. It documents all actions and the parameter's purpose, making it complete for typical invocation. It omits edge cases (e.g., out-of-range track_index) but those are not essential for baseline functionality.
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?
The description adds meaningful context to both parameters beyond the schema: it enumerates valid action values and specifies that track_index is 1-based and relevant only for collapse/expand. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the parameter semantics, and it does so effectively.
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 clearly states 'Control the arrangement view,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It lists distinct actions (zoom, scroll, follow, collapse/expand) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_arrangement_info (reading) or set_ableton_view (switching views).
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?
The description implicitly communicates when this tool is appropriate—any time the arrangement view needs to be manipulated. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the list of actions makes the context clear. No exclusions are necessary for this simple control operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Read' clearly implies a non-mutating operation, and 'Session clip' narrows the context. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior, such as what happens for audio clips, empty MIDI clips, or invalid track/clip indices.
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 compact and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the bullet format improves scannability without excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required here. The main gap is the lack of guidance about audio clips vs. MIDI clips or error behavior, but the tool is still adequately specified for most straightforward calls.
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?
The input schema only provides parameter names and types, so the description adds genuine value by explaining that track_index is a 1-based track number and clip_index is a 1-based clip slot number. This is useful and goes beyond the schema, though it stops short of describing ranges or invalid-input behavior.
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 and resource: 'Read the MIDI notes of a Session clip.' This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like get_clip_properties or add_notes_to_clip by focusing on reading note data. The 1-based parameter clarifications further support the tool's purpose.
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 usage: call it when you need the MIDI note data of a Session clip. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools might be better alternatives for different tasks, such as get_clip_properties or arrangement-oriented clip tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'filled drum pads' which hints at the filtering behavior, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (likely) or any side effects, nor does it describe the response structure beyond the output schema being present.
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 extremely concise, with only two sentences and a parameter list. Every part adds value: the purpose statement and the parameter clarifications. No fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums, simple output) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the necessary essentials. It could mention that this is a read-only operation, but the simplicity of the tool bounds the completeness requirement.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add parameter meaning. It does explain track_index is 1-based and device_index defaults to 1, which adds value over the raw schema. However, the description doesn't clarify what 'device_index' refers to (e.g., which device type) or provide more semantic detail, so it's only partially compensating.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'filled drum pads in a Drum Rack', providing a specific and unambiguous purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle tracks, clips, or devices.
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?
The description implies usage context (querying a drum rack) and parameter roles are documented, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over other tools like get_chain_info or get_device_parameters. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core operation and its scope ('last undone action'), but does not disclose behavior when there is nothing to redo or explicitly note that it mutates Live state.
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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention edge-case behavior (e.g., no-op when undo stack is empty), but overall it provides enough context for basic invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so no parameter documentation is needed. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter details.
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 ('Redo') naming the exact resource ('the last undone action in Live'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'undo' tool. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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 this tool is for reversing a prior undo, and the sibling 'undo' provides context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to, or mention that a prior undo must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 discloses the freeing of the slot but does not mention reversibility, whether clip data is permanently removed, or behavior when the slot is empty. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 two short sentences plus a parameter list. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with an output schema present, the description covers the action, the target (Session slot), and the parameters. It is mostly complete, though it could mention edge cases or error behavior for an empty slot.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds crucial semantics: track_index is a track number and clip_index is a clip slot number, both 1-based. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 'Delete' with the resource 'clip in a Session slot' and the outcome 'freeing the slot'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_arrangement_clip and delete_track.
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?
The description clarifies the target is a Session slot clip, which gives context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly exclude arrangement clips or name alternative tools for those cases. It provides clear context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, auth requirements, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations (none present) but adds minimal transparency beyond the functional intent.
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 two concise sentences plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently explains all parameters without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema provided, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the main use cases (listing chains or devices) and the drill-down logic via chain_index, making it complete for a read-only list tool. It does not discuss edge cases or performance, but these are not critical for this simple operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description thoroughly explains each parameter: track_index is 1-based, device_index has default 1, and chain_index clarifies its special value 0 means list all chains. This adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which only provides titles and defaults with no descriptions, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: "List chains in a rack device, or devices within a specific chain." This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_parameters or get_track_info, which focus on other aspects of the session.
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 the tool—when you need chain/device information in a rack—but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool suggestions. It lacks explicit exclusions or when-to-use guidance beyond the functional description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses 'Read' as a non-destructive action and adds the key behavioral detail that audio-only properties are omitted for MIDI clips rather than failing. Missing error handling or permission requirements, but this is reasonable for a simple getter.
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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then scope, a behavioral note, and parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return values, while the description explains the property scope, the MIDI omission behavior, and the parameter meanings. Minor gaps around invalid indices or error handling, but overall complete for a straightforward read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly defines both parameters with 1-based indexing and semantic labels ('Track number', 'Clip slot number'), which goes beyond the schema's bare titles. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 clearly states 'Read a Session clip's Clip-panel properties' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the covered properties (Transpose, Clip Gain, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clip_notes or set_clip_property.
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 usage through the property list but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative tools like set_clip_property. The behavioral note about MIDI clips is useful but not a usage directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose useful matching behavior: exact_match requires an exact normalized name match, and refresh_cache forces a rescan before matching. However, it does not describe error behavior, what happens if the plugin is not found, whether the plugin replaces existing devices, or whether the operation is undoable.
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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean parameter list. No filler or redundant content; every line provides useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose and all parameter semantics, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not required. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites or failure modes, but for invoking the tool correctly it is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: track_index is 1-based, plugin_name includes an example, exact_match controls normalized matching, and refresh_cache forces a rescan. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the tool loads an external plugin onto a track by plugin name, with the distinguishing note that no URI is required. This differentiates it from sibling tools like load_instrument_or_effect and load_drum_kit.
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 phrase 'by plugin name (no URI required)' implies the intended use case: when the agent has a plugin name rather than a URI. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, such as when loading an instrument/effect by URI or when needing to browse available plugins.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that group and return tracks cannot be armed and explains the arm parameter's effect, but does not mention potential side effects, error handling, or requirements beyond this constraint. Minimal but functional.
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 concise: a single lead sentence plus a two-item parameter list. No filler or irrelevant content, and the critical constraint is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only two well-explained parameters and an output schema present, so the description need not elaborate on returns. It includes a key constraint (group/return tracks) and covers parameter semantics sufficiently, though it omits edge-case behaviors or detailed error conditions, which are not critical for this straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With a schema description coverage of 0%, the description fully compensates by explicitly defining each parameter: track_index as a 1-based track number and arm as a boolean toggling arm/disarm. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the basic type definitions.
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 clearly states the tool 'Arm or disarm a track for recording' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_name or set_track_volume. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.
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 usage for recording arm toggling but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It only notes a constraint (group/return tracks cannot be armed) without referencing when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states 'Set' (mutation) but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior on invalid values. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 well-structured with a concise purpose, a clear list of writable properties, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds useful information; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the property names, parameter semantics, and valid values, making it fairly complete for a setter tool. It lacks information about error handling, return values, and side effects, but the output schema (though not shown) likely covers return data. Slight gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly by listing all valid property names and enumerating acceptable values for several (e.g., effect_mode, filter_routing, mono_poly). It also explains the meaning of each parameter, adding substantial value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the action: 'Set a Wavetable property that is not a device parameter.' It specifies the resource (Wavetable property) and distinguishes from set_device_parameter, making it unambiguous.
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?
The description implies when to use by contrasting with device parameters, and lists all writable property names, giving clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state alternative tools or when NOT to use it, though the distinction is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does well by explaining the concrete effect: clips in the row start and tracks with empty slots stop. This gives a clear mental model of side effects, though it omits edge cases like invalid scene_index or whether other tracks are affected.
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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. It states the action, the effect, and the parameter in two sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter JH, the description is adequate. It covers the core behavior and parameter meaning. Absence of prerequisites or error handling doesn't detract significantly given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema only defines 'scene_index' as an integer with zero description. The description adds the key semantic detail that it is 1-based, which is essential for correct usage.
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 clearly states the action: 'Launch a scene' and details the behavioral consequence (starting clips in the row and stopping tracks with empty slots). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'fire_clip' by referencing a row-based scene launch.
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 usage (launching a scene) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like fire_clip or start_playback, nor does it mention when not to use it. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It details return values and the unity gain calibration (0.85 = 0 dB). While it implies read-only via 'get', it doesn't explicitly state non-mutating behavior or potential error conditions. Adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is well-structured: starts with the core purpose, then return details, usage note, and parameter explanation. It is concise without unnecessary fluff, though the parameter info could be slightly condensed. Each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (exists but not shown), the description covers the essential return values and calibration. It explains the relationship to set_track_volume and indexing nuances. Minor gaps include failure scenarios, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only query tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no description for track_index (0% coverage), so the description compensates by explaining it is 1-based and that return tracks follow session tracks. This adds crucial indexing context beyond the raw schema, fully clarifying the parameter's meaning.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves current fader volume and panning for a track, specifying it returns raw normalized value, min/max, and panning. It distinguishes from siblings like set_track_volume by explicitly positioning itself as a read-before-write operation.
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?
Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before set_track_volume to understand the current state.' This establishes when to use the tool relative to a specific sibling. It also notes return tracks come after session tracks, giving contextual indexing info, though it doesn't compare with get_track_info for broader track properties.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It clearly indicates the operation is a direct fader control, mentions the scale and default fader position, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or reversibility. Since there is no annihilation, it is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear introduction, scale explanation, and parameter list. It is concise, but the parameter details are duplicated in the description since they are also in the schema, though the schema lacks descriptions. The structure is logical and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters but no annotation and an output schema, the description provides necessary details about the volume scale and track indexing, which are critical for correct usage. It could mention the output or return value, but the output schema likely covers that. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters in detail. It does: track_index is 1-based and clarifies return tracks position, and volume is normalized with specific values like 0.85 for unity. This fully compensates for lack of schema 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?
The description clearly states it sets the mixer fader volume for a track, distinguishing it from device parameters and sibling tools like set_track_panning or set_device_parameter. It specifies the action (set track volume) and resource (mixer fader).
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?
The description provides context for when to use it (setting the actual track fader, not device parameters) and details the volume scale, including the unity gain value. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like set_send_level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses case-insensitive search, result limiting, and the cache/refresh behavior. It does not elaborate on what 'discovered' means or potential side effects of forced rescans, but the core behavior is transparent enough.
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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list. No filler or redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return-value structure, and the description covers purpose, filtering, result limiting, and cache behavior. The only notable gap is lack of guidance on when to select this tool over sibling browser/plugin tools, but for a simple list operation the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter descriptions in the tool description are essential. All three parameters are explained with meaningful semantics: query's case-insensitivity, max_results' display limit, and refresh_cache's forced rescan behavior.
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 clearly states the tool lists discovered external plugins (VST/AU) with optional name filtering. This specific verb+resource+scope differentiates it from siblings like load_external_plugin and the browser-navigation tools.
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 this is for browsing/or discovering available plugins before loading one, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_browser_tree or get_browser_items_at_path. There are no exclusions or comparison guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the meaning and effect of each property (e.g., 'muted - True deactivates the clip') and notes which properties apply to audio vs MIDI clips. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible, which would be valuable for a mutating tool.
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 long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core operation, then organizes the property list and parameters in a clear, structured format. There is no redundant wording, and the detailed property explanations are necessary given the tool's versatility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (many properties, 4 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics well. It lists all properties with meanings, parameter formats, and applicability. It lacks explicit error-handling or return-value details, but these are likely covered by the output schema and are less critical for a setter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It specifies that track_index and clip_index are 1-based, enumerates the valid property_name values (the list of writable names), and explains that the value type depends on the property. This gives an agent complete information to construct valid calls.
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 clearly states 'Set one property on a Session clip,' which is a specific verb+resource. It enumerates the writable properties, distinguishing it from siblings like set_clip_name (which only sets the name) and set_arrangement_clip_property (which targets arrangement clips) by explicitly limiting scope to 'Session clip'.
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?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for Session clips and lists all settable properties, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use set_clip_name for name-only changes'), but the phrase 'Session clip' and the property list implicitly differentiate it from similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether playback pauses or continues), error conditions, or the effect on the current playing state. However, the parameter descriptions clarify the expected values, which partially compensates.
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 succinct, with no unnecessary words. It includes the single action and parameter explanations in a compact format, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. It does not mention return values, but for a simple seek operation, that is not critical. The absence of side-effect information is a minor gap, but the overall description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds semantic detail beyond the schema by specifying that bar is 1-based and beat is 0-based, and explains their precedence. This fully clarifies the meaning of both parameters, achieving 100% coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Jump') and the target ('playback to a position'), which is distinct from other set_* tools like set_tempo or set_clip_property. It precisely identifies the tool's primary function.
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?
The description implicitly indicates when to use it: when you need to move the playback position. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'jump playback' is sufficient for most use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers the core behavior clearly: setting solo to true solos the track, false clears it. It does not discuss side effects like whether soloing affects other tracks' audible state, but for a simple boolean setter this is adequate.
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 a brief first sentence followed by two parameter bullets. Every line earns its place, and the key behavior is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with two fully described parameters and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could add a note about invalid track indices or exclusive solo behavior, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that track_index is 1-based and that solo true/false maps to solo/clear. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare integer and boolean types in the schema.
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-resource pair: 'Solo or unsolo a track.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_mute, set_track_arm, and set_track_volume.
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 action itself implies the use case—soloing or unsoloing a track—but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention excluded scenarios. It is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by noting that Live 11's API documented no setter and that the call reports absence rather than failing silently. It does not discuss reversibility or exact mutation effects, but the API-availability caveat is substantial.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact source list, one relevant caveat, and a clean bulleted parameter list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, all parameters, valid sources, and a build-specific edge case. It is slightly incomplete regarding the exact numeric range of value and the relationship to sibling modulation tools, but overall it is a solid standalone specification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all six parameters: 1-based indexing, defaults, chain_index 0 meaning 'not in a rack', the explicit source list, and target_index provenance from get_wavetable_state. Only the numeric range for 'value' is left unspecified.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Set one cell of Wavetable's modulation matrix.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_wavetable_mod_target or set_wavetable_property, and the scope ('one cell') is precise.
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 gives useful prerequisites, such as 'target_index: Matrix target index from get_wavetable_state', and lists valid source names. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over add_wavetable_mod_target or set_wavetable_property, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key behavior: default mode returns a summary grouped by category with counts, while category or show_all returns full details. This is valuable and goes beyond a generic list tool, though it does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect guarantees.
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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a labeled parameter list, and a concise explanation of output modes. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 params, rack chains, output modes) and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects. An output schema exists, so detailed return values aren't required in text, and the description still clarifies the summary/detail distinction, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains every parameter with meaningful details beyond the schema: track_index is 1-based, device_index defaults to 1, chain_index indicates rack chain with 0 meaning no chain, category filters and returns details, show_all triggers full detail mode. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'List parameters for a device on a track.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_device_parameter (which writes) and describe_device_api (which describes APIs).
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 gives clear context on how to use the tool, including default vs. category/show_all modes, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 does well by stating the tool returns a complete listing ('every scene') with structural semantics (scene = row of the Session grid) and practical implications (which clips launch together). It doesn't explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, but the list semantics strongly imply it; slightly more explicitness would push it to a 5.
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?
Three crisp sentences, each with a distinct job: state the action, define the domain concept, and explain the use case. The lead sentence is specific and front-loaded. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema available and a simple domain concept, the description is essentially complete. It could marginally improve by explicitly contrasting with get_session_info or noting behavior with empty sessions, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately shifts focus to the return value semantics, clarifying what 'scene' means in this context and what data gets returned (name, state, clips). Since there are no params to document, there is no additional bottom-up parameter documentation possible.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('every scene'), and enumerates the exact scope ('name, state and which clips it holds'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like fire_scene, create_scene, and get_session_info by establishing that this is the read/listing operation for scenes, noting it covers every scene, not a subset.
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?
The description provides clear usage context with 'Use this to see which clips would launch together,' telling the agent the practical reason to invoke this tool. However, it stops short of naming alternatives or excluding them explicitly (e.g., contrasting with get_session_info), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 discloses that include_notes and include_params can make output large, hinting at performance implications. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation or any side effects, but this can be inferred from nature.
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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, followed by a clear parameter section. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple dump with optional parameters, and the description covers what it returns. An output schema exists, so return values don't need to be explained. The description is complete for the tool's simplicity, but could arguably mention the default behavior of include_notes=true which isn't in schema (schema says default true, description says include notes are optional).
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 description coverage is 0% (the description does not repeat the schema info), but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains that include_notes includes MIDI notes of every clip (large output) and include_params includes every device parameter (very large output). This adds value beyond the schema's type/default.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Dump the whole project state in one call' and lists the specific resources included (tracks, clips, devices, scenes, returns, master and cue points). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track_info or get_session_info.
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?
The description implies that this is a comprehensive snapshot tool meant to be used when you need the entire project state at once, as opposed to individual getters. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses the side-effect nature (enable/disable) and reveals an important behavioral rule: start_bar takes precedence over start_beat, and end_bar is used with start_bar to compute length. It does not cover edge cases like enabled=false combined with region parameters, but the core behavior is disclosed.
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 compact and front-loaded with a summary sentence, followed by a scannable parameter list. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a five-parameter tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains all parameters and the key precedence rule, but it could better clarify the behavior when enabled=false or when both bar-based and beat-based loop definitions are used together.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: every parameter gets a meaningful explanation, including units (1-based bars, beats) and precedence relationships. However, it stops short of fully specifying how end_bar and length_beats interact when both are supplied or what default 0 values mean.
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-resource pair: 'Enable/disable arrangement loop and set region.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_arrangement_info or control_arrangement_view by focusing on the loop's enabled state and region boundaries.
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?
The purpose sentence makes the primary use case clear: call this when you need to toggle the arrangement loop or define its loop region. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains the key parameter's behavior (index position or -1 to append) which is a significant behavioral detail. It does not mention side effects or constraints like range checking, but for a create operation, this is sufficient.
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 very concise, with a clear one-line purpose and a bullet point for the parameter. No unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides the essential information needed for basic usage. It explains the parameter semantics and the default behavior. However, it does not mention any restrictions, effects, or when to use vs alternatives, but given the simple nature of the toolustom, it's adequate. Siblings give context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clearly explains the only parameter 'index' with its meaning and special value -1, even though the schema doesn't provide description. This is explicit and unambiguous.
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 clearly states 'Insert a new scene' with a specific verb and resource, and the parameter explanation distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_scene or duplicate_scene. It is concise and unambiguous.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use (creating a new scene) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. However, the sibling tool names provide implicit differentiation, and the parameter guidance for index adds usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains that it reports on device-specific classes and that the output includes members not in parameter lists. It could additionally mention that it may return a large/structured object, but the purpose is well-disclosed.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes only necessary context and parameter details.
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?
Given the tool's output schema exists, the description's role in documenting parameters is secondary; it covers the core behavior and parameter semantics well within the context of the schema and output schema.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain each parameter's meaning beyond listing the names. However, it provides a brief parenthetical for each parameter (e.g., '1-based', '0 = not in a rack') which adds semantic value. This somewhat compensates for the lack of schema 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?
The description clearly states what the tool does: it reports what a device object exposes in the running build of Live, distinguishing it from related tools like get_device_parameters or get_chain_info. The verb 'describe' combined with the resource 'device API' is specific.
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?
The description explains when to use this tool (to discover members not visible in parameter lists) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context implies that it is complementary to get_device_parameters, which is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It indicates a read-only operation (listing) and mentions the output includes bar positions, implying no side effects. It lacks explicit details about error handling or edge cases, but for a simple getter this is adequate.
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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is well-structured and free of extraneous words.
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?
Given the absence of parameters and annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns (bar positions). Since an output schema exists but is not provided, the description does not need to elaborate on return format. The tool's purpose is fully captured.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to describe. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty), and the description adds no unnecessary information. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all cue points (locators) with bar positions.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('cue points'), and adds relevant detail (bar positions), distinguishing it from other getter tools like get_track_info or get_session_snapshot.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving cue point information but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or provide context for exclusion. However, given the straightforward nature of a getter and the lack of competing tools for cue points, it is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'quick safety summary' and mentions the minimum-track constraint, indicating it is a read-only safety check without side effects. However, it doesn't detail the exact content of the summary or edge cases, but for a simple getter this is adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains its utility. No redundant or filler content.
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?
This is a simple no-parameter tool with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to detail return format. It provides enough context for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect in terms of safety summary, fulfilling completeness for this scope.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly focuses on output behavior rather than inputs. As the schema coverage is trivial and no parameters exist, the baseline for zero-param tools is 4, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool checks whether session tracks can be deleted right now, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('track deletion status'). It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like delete_track by focusing on status checking rather than performing deletion.
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?
The description gives clear context: use this to avoid failed deletes due to Ableton's minimum-track constraint. While it doesn't explicitly name 'delete_track' as an alternative, the phrase 'avoid attempting deletes' implies pre-deletion guidance, making the usage scenario clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the destructive clearing behavior and the precise outcome ('exactly the notes given'). However, it does not mention potential edge cases like invalid notes or missing clips.
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 highly concise: two sentences for the core behavior plus a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is scannable and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and key behavior for a moderately complex tool. It does not mention error conditions or value ranges, but the presence of an output schema covers return values, making it sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing all three parameters with meanings: track_index (1-based), clip_index (1-based), and notes (structure with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute). This adds substantial meaning beyond the generic schema.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Replace a clip's contents') and the resource ('clip's contents'), with a specific process: 'clear every existing note, then write these.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling add_notes_to_clip by contrasting append vs. replace behavior.
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?
The description explicitly mentions when to use this tool: when you want the clip to end up with exactly the provided notes. It contrasts with add_notes_to_clip (which only appends), giving a clear alternative and usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description begins with 'Read', which clearly signals a read-only operation with no side effects. It also specifies exactly what data is returned (modulation matrix, wavetable selection, voicing) and clarifies that this data is not available through get_device_parameters, providing full transparency without relying on annotations.
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 structured with a clear purpose statement, a contextual note about where the data lives, and a concise parameter list. It uses bullet-like formatting that aids quick scanning. No fluff or unnecessary details.
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?
Given the output schema exists benot shown but indicated, the description covers purpose, usage differentiation with a sibling, and parameter semantics fully. It also clarifies that the tool reads data not available via get_device_parameters, giving the agent enough context to decide when to invoke it. The absence of annotations is compensated by the explicit read-only nature implied by the verb 'Read' and the clear scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes a Parameters section explaining each parameter's meaning and indexing conventions: 'track_index: Track number (1-based)', 'device_index: Device number on the track (1-based)', 'chain_index: Chain number inside a rack (1-based, 0 = not in a rack)'. This clarifies the semantics beyond the schema's default values and types, reducing ambiguity for the agent.
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 opens with 'Read a Wavetable's modulation matrix, wavetable selection and voicing', a specific verb-resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It explicitly contrasts with get_device_parameters, distinguishing this tool from a close sibling and clarifying its unique scope.
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?
The description explicitly states 'None of this appears in get_device_parameters - it lives on the WavetableDevice object itself', giving clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative tool. This contrasts the tool with a sibling and implies when not to use it, which is ideal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp-fixed MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zabolotniydj/ableton-mcp-fixed/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zabolotniydj/ableton-mcp-fixed)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ableton-mcp-fixed MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zabolotniydj/ableton-mcp-fixed/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/zabolotniydj/ableton-mcp-fixed)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/zabolotniydj/ableton-mcp-fixed'

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