Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by zabolotniydj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_cue_point

Creates a named cue point at a specified bar and beat in Ableton Live.

Instructions

Create a cue point at a position.

Parameters:

  • bar: Bar number (1-based).

  • beat: Beat position (0-based).

  • name: Name for the cue point.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_cue_point"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barNo
beatNo
nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools