Ardour Ultra MCP

by Elias02345

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

set_plugin_enabled

Idempotent

Enable or disable a plugin processor on a specified track to control its active state during an Ardour session.

Instructions

Set plugin processor active state.

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": "set_plugin_enabled"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation. The description adds little beyond restating the enabled-state target and does not explain side effects, dry-run behavior, confirmation semantics, or revision handling.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than thorough conciseness.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested request object and several safety-related fields, the description is incomplete. Annotations and the output schema cover some safety and return aspects, but the description provides almost no help with the nested parameters or operational context.

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 must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only hints at the enabled state via 'active state' and says nothing about track_id, processor_id, dry_run, confirm_delete, or expected_revision.

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 clear action and target: setting a plugin processor's active state. An agent can infer it toggles enabled/disabled status rather than adding or removing a plugin, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as set_plugin_parameters.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It only implies usage from the purpose statement, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over related plugin-management tools.

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

Deploy Server