Skip to main content
Glama
Ardour Ultra MCP
by Elias02345

arm_track

Sets or clears a track's recording arm so you can control which tracks capture audio during recording.

Instructions

Set recording arm on a recordable track.

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": "arm_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNo
successNo
warningsNo
revision_afterNo
changed_objectsNo
revision_beforeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's remaining job is to explain mutation behavior. It says nothing about why a track-arm call carries confirm_delete and dry_run escapes, what happens on a non-recordable track, or what the response reports.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is certainly concise. But brevity here comes at the cost of specification — the single clause carries no actionable detail beyond the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a state-changing tool with a nested request object, undocumented concurrency (expected_revision) and dry-run semantics, the description is far too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a nested TrackToggle object with five undocumented fields, including confirm_delete and expected_revision, which are non-obvious for an arm operation. The description adds zero meaning about any of them, leaving genuinely surprising fields completely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence names a specific verb ("Set recording arm") and resource ("track"), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not clarify that this is a toggle (arm vs. disarm via an enabled flag) and gives no hint of how it differs from adjacent siblings such as set_track_mute or set_track_solo.

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 when-to-use guidance is given at all — no prerequisites about what makes a track "recordable", no mention of when to pass dry_run versus a real write, and no alternatives referenced. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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