Skip to main content
Glama
Ardour Ultra MCP
by Elias02345

create_automation_points

Batch-create exact automation points on Ardour tracks with explicit native units, using optional replacement and delete confirmation for controlled session edits.

Instructions

Batch exact points with explicit native units; replace requires delete intent; native memento 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": "create_automation_points"
  }
}

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
Behavior1/5

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

The description discloses useful behavior such as "native memento undo" and that replace requires delete intent. However, this directly conflicts with the annotation destructiveHint=false, since replacing existing automation points deletes data and requires explicit delete intent.

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?

The definition is a single compact sentence with no filler, and key constraints are front-loaded. But its telegraphic semicolon-separated phrasing is too terse and makes the tool harder to understand than a slightly longer structured description would.

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 complex batch mutation tool with a rich nested schema and a destructive replace path. The description covers only a few fragments and leaves most operational context, parameter usage, and alternatives unstated.

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 carry parameter meaning. It only hints at explicit units and the replace/confirm_delete relationship, leaving track_id, control, points, interpolation, expected_revision, and processor/parameter routing 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 phrase "Batch exact points with explicit native units" implies bulk creation of points, but it never explicitly says these are automation points on a track control. The verb is vague compared with the tool name, and no sibling such as get_automation or set_automation_mode is referenced.

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?

The only conditional guidance is "replace requires delete intent," which hints at confirm_delete behavior. There is no explanation of when to use this instead of get_automation, set_automation_mode, clear_automation, or other creation tools.

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