Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ardour Ultra MCP

Ardour Ultra MCP

by Elias02345
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_meter_state

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a track's route peak meter values in dBFS for level monitoring; does not perform realtime audio analysis.

Instructions

Read route peak meter values in dBFS; no audio analysis in realtime.

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_meter_state"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds that values are a dBFS snapshot rather than continuous analysis, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether meters are live, per-track, or how often to poll.

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?

One short clause pair, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the ambiguity it leaves around the parameter, but nothing 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 explained. Still, the only input parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap for a tool the agent must call with a track reference.

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% on the single required 'request' object, and the description adds no meaning about track_id or about why dry_run/confirm_delete/expected_revision appear on a read tool. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Read route peak meter values') plus units (dBFS), which lets an agent distinguish it from analyze_audio_file or compare_audio_files. It stops short of naming a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The clause 'no audio analysis in realtime' implicitly draws a when-not boundary against audio-analysis tools, but it never states when to prefer this tool, or which sibling to use when actual analysis is wanted. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools