Skip to main content
Glama
AudialAI

io.github.AudialAI/audial-mcp

Official
by AudialAI

Master a track

master

Finalize an audio mix by applying loudness and tone processing, optionally matching a reference track.

Instructions

Master a mix, optionally matching a reference track.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesFull path to a local audio file (.wav, .mp3, .aif, .aiff, .flac, .m4a, .ogg, .aac). ~ is expanded.
reference_fileNoOptional reference track whose loudness and tone the master should match.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYes
filesYes
summaryYes
metadataYes
output_dirYes
execution_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, output file creation, or whether the original mix is modified.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose is stated immediately and clearly.

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 100% schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It lacks expanded usage context, but the surrounding structured fields compensate for the missing return and parameter details.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for file_path and reference_file. The description only restates optional reference matching and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Master a mix' and notes optional reference matching. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as analyze or stem_split.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Master a mix'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.