Ableton MCP Extended

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_device_parameter

Adjust a device parameter on a specific track, using a friendly name or index, with a normalized value. Set precise mix or effect values inside Ableton Live racks and chains to shape your sound.

Instructions

Set a device parameter value.

Parameters:

track_index: Track number (1-based).
device_index: Device number (1-based, default 1).
chain_index: Chain number inside a rack (1-based, 0 = no chain).
parameter_name: Parameter name, friendly alias, or partial match.
parameter_index: Parameter number (1-based, alternative to name).
value: Normalized value 0.0-1.0.

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": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>"
    },
    "name": "set_device_parameter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	No
`chain_index`	No
`track_index`	Yes
`device_index`	No
`parameter_name`	No
`parameter_index`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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.

Deploy Server