Ardour Ultra MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies the backend heartbeat and returns the current Ardour session so agents can confirm connectivity before inspecting or editing.

Instructions

Check backend heartbeat and current session.

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": "ping"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the call touches a backend heartbeat and the current session, with no mention of latency, failure semantics, or what a heartbeat result signifies. With annotations doing most of the work, a 3 is appropriate.

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 is partly what leaves the purpose ambiguous.

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, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still missing is routing guidance against overlapping siblings and any explanation of the odd request parameters, which is a real gap for an otherwise simple 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% and the single request object exposes fields (dry_run, confirm_delete, expected_revision) that look nonsensical for a ping, yet the description says nothing about them. An agent has no basis to decide whether to pass the required request object empty or populate any field.

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?

"Check backend heartbeat and current session" names a verb and two resources, but leaves it ambiguous whether this is a liveness probe or a data fetch of session details. Siblings get_session_info and get_server_info plausibly cover the same ground, and the description does nothing to distinguish them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call ping, get_session_info, get_server_info, or doctor for a connectivity or session question.

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

Deploy Server