Ardour Ultra MCP

by Elias02345

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

create_group

Create an empty route group and return its native linkage defaults for subsequent routing or mixing edits.

Instructions

Create an empty route group; returns actual native linkage defaults.

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_group"
  }
}

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 disclose that this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds that the group starts empty and that native linkage defaults are returned, but it omits permission requirements, side effects, and whether dry_run or confirm_delete change behavior.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The second clause about native linkage defaults is cryptic and slightly undermines the otherwise tight structure.

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?

The output schema handles return values, but the input schema has four nested fields with zero description coverage and the description does not compensate. For a mutation tool with dry_run and confirm_delete options, the definition is too thin.

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 description supplies no meaning for the nested request fields such as name, dry_run, confirm_delete, or expected_revision. On a create operation, unexplained confirm_delete and expected_revision fields are particularly costly.

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 ('Create an empty route group'), so the agent knows this creates a group rather than a track or bus. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as ensure_bus, and 'actual native linkage defaults' is ambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or whether the group must be empty. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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

Deploy Server