Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by zabolotniydj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

duplicate_scene

Duplicate a scene in Ableton Live, inserting the copy directly below the original. Provide the scene number (1-based) to copy.

Instructions

Duplicate a scene, inserting the copy directly below it.

Parameters:

  • scene_index: Scene number (1-based).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scene_index": "<scene_index>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scene_indexYes

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?

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools