Skip to main content
Glama
Ardour Ultra MCP
by Elias02345

clear_automation

Destructive

Deletes target automation on an Ardour track control with explicit confirmation, dry-run support, and native undo.

Instructions

Clear target automation with explicit delete intent and native undo.

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": "clear_automation"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the deletion is recoverable via 'native undo' and requires 'explicit delete intent'. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a destructive tool, though it omits scope of what gets removed and any confirmation flow.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the tool's destructive nature.

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?

For a destructive mutation accepting a nested request with eight fields, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be covered, but the parameter contract and the safety semantics of confirm_delete/dry_run are entirely missing.

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% and the request object carries eight sub-properties (track_id, control, processor_id, parameter_index, dry_run, confirm_delete, expected_revision), none of which the description explains. Critical fields like dry_run and confirm_delete are left entirely undocumented.

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 ('Clear') and resource ('automation'), which is distinguishable from siblings like get_automation or set_automation_mode. The word 'target' is vague and the description never says which target fields select the automation, so it falls short of full sibling-level precision.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from this text whether clear_automation should be preferred over set_automation_mode or clear_loop in ambiguous cases.

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