Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ableton MCP Extended

Ableton MCP Extended

by zabolotniydj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_ableton_view

Switch Ableton's main view to Arranger, Session, Detail, Detail/Clip, Detail/DeviceChain, or Browser.

Instructions

Switch Ableton's main view.

Parameters:

  • view: View name. Options: Arranger, Session, Detail, Detail/Clip, Detail/DeviceChain, Browser.

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": "set_ableton_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoArranger

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools