Ardour Ultra MCP

by Elias02345

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

add_plugin

Insert an inventory-selected plugin into a track’s processor chain at a chosen index by specifying its ID and format.

Instructions

Load inventory-selected plugin ID/format and insert at processor index.

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": {
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "add_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`error`	No
`success`	No
`warnings`	No
`revision_after`	No
`changed_objects`	No
`revision_before`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds that the plugin is inserted at a processor index and comes from inventory selection, but it omits effects on existing processors, failure behavior, and the roles of dry_run, confirm_delete, and expected_revision.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though its terseness contributes to the missing parameter and usage detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a mutation tool with a nested request object and zero schema descriptions. Although an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description does not explain the required track_id or the control parameters, leaving the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented nested fields. It maps plugin_id, format, and index, but omits the required track_id and the control parameters dry_run, confirm_delete, and expected_revision.

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: loading an inventory-selected plugin and inserting it at a processor index. It is distinguishable from preset-loading siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify scope beyond the one sentence.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The phrase 'inventory-selected' implies a prerequisite, but the agent is left to infer when this tool should be chosen over siblings like load_plugin_preset or set_plugin_parameters.

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

Deploy Server