Skip to main content
Glama
Ardour Ultra MCP
by Elias02345

edit_midi_notes

Replace existing MIDI notes in one atomic native diff, updating pitch, start time, duration, velocity, or channel with validation.

Instructions

Replace guarded notes atomically in one native diff; pitch/time/length/velocity/channel.

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": "edit_midi_notes"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, and the description adds real value on atomicity and single-diff semantics — useful for a bulk replacement. However, it never says what happens to the original notes being replaced, why confirm_delete exists if destructiveHint is false, or that dry_run provides a preview. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this partial added context lands at 3.

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?

It is one front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is compressed past usefulness: 'guarded' and 'native diff' pack meaning that a reader cannot unpack, and the trailing attribute list is a fragment. Terseness here trades away clarity rather than earning conciseness.

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 explained, but this is a complex nested-request mutation with concurrency and preview parameters, and the description covers none of them. An agent would have to read the full JSON schema to learn that a fingerprint and revision are required, and even then would not know the contract for dry_run or confirm_delete.

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 coverage is reported at 0%, so the description should compensate, and it does not: it only echoes the five MidiNote attributes. The request-level fields that actually determine correct invocation — note_ref identity matching, model_fingerprint, expected_revision, dry_run, confirm_delete, and the 1–10000 replacement bound — are never mentioned.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Replace ... notes') plus a scope statement ('atomically in one native diff') and enumerates the editable attributes (pitch/time/length/velocity/channel). It does not differentiate from close siblings like insert_midi_notes or delete_midi_notes, and 'guarded notes' is undefined jargon, but the core operation is identifiable.

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 statement of when to use this versus insert_midi_notes/delete_midi_notes, no prerequisite about needing a model_fingerprint or expected_revision, and no guidance on when to set dry_run. 'Guarded' hints at a precondition but names neither the guard nor the failure mode.

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