Skip to main content
Glama
Ardour Ultra MCP
by Elias02345

list_plugin_presets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve available presets for a loaded plugin using track and processor IDs to inspect or select presets in an Ardour session.

Instructions

List loaded plugin's available presets.

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_plugin_presets"
  }
}

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

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes one extra fact beyond that – the plugin must already be loaded – but says nothing about failure modes when the plugin isn't loaded or how large the preset list may be.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than wasteful wording.

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 profile. However, with zero parameter documentation and no guidance on sequencing relative to load_plugin_preset, the definition is only marginally complete for a tool whose only input is an opaque nested reference object.

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 carries the full burden and fails to explain that the single 'request' object must identify the plugin via track_id and processor_id. It also gives no help with the confusingly present dry_run and confirm_delete fields, which are irrelevant to a read-only list call and are left unexplained.

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 ('List ... presets') scoped to a 'loaded plugin', which separates it from load_plugin_preset and list_available_plugins well enough to act on. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as load_plugin_preset (the natural follow-up) or list_available_plugins. The only hint is the word 'loaded', which implies a precondition but does not state one.

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