Ardour Ultra MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_midi_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Paginate internal MIDI notes from an Ardour region using source-relative 1920-quarter ticks, with guarded model references for reliable inspection and editing.

Instructions

Paginate internal notes with source-relative 1920-quarter ticks and guarded model references.

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": "list_midi_notes"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: 'guarded model references' is opaque, and it never explains pagination behavior (default limit 100, max 1000, offset semantics) or why a read tool's payload carries confirm_delete, dry_run and expected_revision fields that an agent might wrongly think it must set.

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?

One short sentence with no filler is good structure, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity: 'internal notes' and 'guarded model references' are jargon that does not resolve into actionable information.

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 described. However, for a read-only paginated list whose schema is polluted with mutation-style flags (confirm_delete, dry_run, expected_revision), the description should have clarified those fields and the required identifiers; it does not, leaving a materially incomplete definition.

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 single 'request' parameter nests eight fields, yet the description explains none of them. It does not say that track_id and region_id are required, what limit/offset default to, what dry_run does, or what a revision guard means for a read operation — leaving the agent to reverse-engineer semantics from field names alone.

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 verb 'Paginate' and resource 'internal notes' identify a listing operation, and '1920-quarter ticks' hints at MIDI note timing, but 'internal notes' never aligns with the tool name's 'midi_notes' and no scope (which track/region) is stated. An agent can guess it lists notes, but cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings such as list_regions or list_tracks.

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 guidance, no mention of prerequisites (a track_id and region_id are required), and no routing to alternatives like list_regions for discovering valid region IDs. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server