Skip to main content
Glama
Ardour Ultra MCP
by Elias02345

remove_track_from_group

Remove a track's membership from an Ardour group without deleting the track's route; when the last member leaves, Ardour deletes the ordinary group.

Instructions

Remove exact membership without deleting the route; Ardour automatically deletes an ordinary group when its last member leaves.

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": "remove_track_from_group"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states that Ardour automatically deletes an ordinary group when its last member leaves, which is a destructive side effect. This contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false, which would lead an agent to believe the operation has no destructive consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted wording, and the important route-preservation constraint is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a nested request object with five fields and no field descriptions, yet the description provides no parameter guidance and no explicit usage comparison with related tools. The output schema exists, so return values need not be covered, but the input side is substantially under-described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the nested request fields such as group_id, track_id, dry_run, confirm_delete, or expected_revision. The description therefore does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Remove exact membership') and clarifies that the route itself is not deleted. It distinguishes the operation from route deletion, though it could have been even more explicit that this removes a track from a group.

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?

It implies the operation is for removing group membership without deleting the route, and it notes the side effect when the last member leaves. However, it does not explicitly compare this with alternatives such as delete_group or delete_track.

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