Provides AI voice processing workflow integration for analyzing audio files generated by ElevenLabs
Uses FFmpeg/FFprobe as a fallback mechanism for analyzing exotic and corrupted audio formats that aren't supported by the primary metadata extraction library
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@MCP Audio Inspector analyze the background music in my game's assets folder"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server for comprehensive audio file analysis and metadata extraction, designed specifically for game audio development workflows.
Comprehensive Metadata Extraction: Uses music-metadata library for detailed audio analysis
FFprobe Fallback: Handles exotic and corrupted formats through FFprobe
Game Audio Analysis: Specialized analysis for game development use cases
Batch Processing: Analyze entire directories of audio files
MCP Integration: Seamless integration with Claude Desktop
Cross-Platform: Works on Windows, macOS, and Linux
Related MCP server: MCP Server Whisper
npm install -g mcp-audio-inspectorOr use with npx:
npx mcp-audio-inspectorAdd to your Claude Desktop configuration:
{
"mcpServers": {
"audio-inspector": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-audio-inspector"],
"env": {}
}
}
}Analyze a single file:
npx mcp-audio-inspector --standalone path/to/audio.mp3Batch analyze a directory:
npx mcp-audio-inspector --batch path/to/audio/directorySave output to file:
npx mcp-audio-inspector --standalone audio.wav --output analysis.jsonPrimary Support (music-metadata):
MP3, WAV, FLAC, OGG, M4A, AAC, WMA, AIFF, AU, WebM, Opus, APE, MP4
Extended Support (FFprobe fallback):
Any format supported by FFmpeg
Analyze a single audio file and extract comprehensive metadata.
Parameters:
filePath (string, required): Path to the audio file
includeGameAnalysis (boolean, optional): Include game-specific analysis (default: true)
Analyze all audio files in a directory.
Parameters:
directoryPath (string, required): Path to directory containing audio files
recursive (boolean, optional): Search subdirectories recursively (default: false)
includeGameAnalysis (boolean, optional): Include game-specific analysis (default: true)
Get list of supported audio formats.
The tool returns comprehensive metadata including:
{
"file": {
"path": "string",
"name": "string",
"size": "number",
"modified": "ISO date string"
},
"format": {
"container": "string",
"codec": "string",
"lossless": "boolean",
"duration": "number",
"bitrate": "number",
"sampleRate": "number",
"channels": "number",
"bitsPerSample": "number"
},
"tags": {
"title": "string",
"artist": "string",
"album": "string",
"year": "number",
"genre": "string",
"track": "number",
"comment": "string"
},
"gameAudio": {
"suitableForLoop": "boolean",
"recommendedCompressionFormat": "string",
"estimatedMemoryUsage": "number",
"platformOptimizations": {
"mobile": "string",
"desktop": "string",
"console": "string"
},
"compressionRatio": "number",
"gameDevNotes": "string"
}
}The inspector includes specialized analysis for game development:
Loop Suitability: Determines if audio is suitable for looping
Compression Recommendations: Suggests optimal compression formats
Memory Usage Estimation: Calculates uncompressed memory requirements
Platform Optimizations: Platform-specific optimization suggestions
Game Development Notes: Actionable recommendations for game audio
Node.js 18+
FFmpeg/FFprobe (for fallback support)
This README provides a quick overview. For comprehensive documentation:
Installation Guide: Complete setup instructions
Quick Start Tutorial: Get running in 15 minutes
API Reference: Complete API documentation
Game Audio Workflow: Complete game development pipeline
ElevenLabs Integration: AI voice processing workflow
Batch Processing Guide: Efficient mass audio processing
Troubleshooting Guide: Common issues and solutions
Contributing Guide: How to contribute to the project
MIT License - see LICENSE file for details.
Contributions welcome! Please read our Contributing Guide and submit pull requests to our GitHub repository.
Issues: GitHub Issues
Documentation: README
Community: Discussions
Analyze all audio files in a directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recursive | No | Search subdirectories recursively | |
| directoryPath | Yes | Path to directory containing audio files | |
| includeGameAnalysis | No | Include game-specific audio analysis |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'analyze' without specifying whether it modifies files, requires permissions, or what the output is.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete; it lacks information about return values, side effects, or what 'analysis' entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'analyze' and resource 'all audio files in a directory', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'analyze_audio_file' which focuses on a single file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for batch analysis of audio files but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_audio_file) or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Analyze a single audio file and extract comprehensive metadata
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | Path to the audio file to analyze | |
| includeGameAnalysis | No | Include game-specific audio analysis |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'extract comprehensive metadata' without stating whether it is read-only, has side effects, requires permissions, or what happens with unsupported formats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is present, yet the description does not hint at return values or metadata specifics. Lacks context on file size limits, format support, or game analysis details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool's function: analyze a single audio file to extract comprehensive metadata. It distinguishes from sibling 'analyze_audio_batch' by specifying 'single'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the batch alternative or what prerequisites exist. The description does not include any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get list of supported audio formats
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a list of formats, omitting details like whether it's a read-only operation, performance characteristics, or how the output is structured.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous information. Every word is essential and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks details about the returned data (e.g., format names, strings vs. objects), which would help an agent use the output effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no further meaning to the schema, which is adequate for a parameter-less tool, but does not explain the output format or content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of supported audio formats'. It is specific and unambiguous, and the sibling tools ('analyze_audio_batch', 'analyze_audio_file') are distinct in purpose, so no confusion arises.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 versus alternatives. The description does not indicate prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where it should or should not be called.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyzing a batch of files, analyzing a single file, and listing supported formats. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow the consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (analyze_audio_batch, analyze_audio_file, get_supported_formats).
Three tools is well-scoped for an audio inspection server, covering batch analysis, single file analysis, and format querying without excess or deficiency.
The tool set fully covers the domain of audio file inspection: analyzing individual files, batch processing, and checking supported formats. No obvious gaps.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
AI mixing and mastering: analyze your mixes, run DSP autofix, render stems, and master tracks.
Privacy-first audio intelligence: BPM, key, waveform. Audio never stored. Pay per second.
AI-manageable audio CDN: upload, transcode, normalize, stream & deliver audio, plus grounded docs.
AI music production assistant — audio profiling, AI mixing sessions, and service inquiries.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DeveloperZo/mcp-audio-inspector'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server