Ardour Ultra MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_automation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect automation points and mode for gain, pan, plugin, or send controls so you can verify existing settings before editing a session.

Instructions

Inspect automation points and mode for gain, pan, plugin or send.

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": "get_automation"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the notion of inspecting both "points and mode", and says nothing about how much data comes back, whether an empty automation curve is an error, or why a read-only tool carries dry_run/confirm_delete fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the control scope follows. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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, and annotations cover the safety semantics. What is missing is any explanation of the nested request fields (especially processor_id/parameter_index for the plugin control and expected_revision), which is the main ambiguity for correctly invoking this tool.

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 the burden, yet it only echoes the control enum values (gain, pan, plugin, send) that the schema already lists. It does not explain track_id, processor_id, parameter_index, expected_revision, or why dry_run and confirm_delete appear on a read operation.

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 uses a specific verb ("Inspect") with a specific resource ("automation points and mode") and scopes it to the four control types gain, pan, plugin, and send. This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling mutations like clear_automation, create_automation_points, and set_automation_mode without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Inspect" implies a read-only operation, which is the main usage signal, and the sibling names suggest the write-side counterparts. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this instead of set_automation_mode or clear_automation, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing an existing track.

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

Deploy Server