Skip to main content
Glama
Ardour Ultra MCP
by Elias02345

set_region_lock

Idempotent

Lock or unlock a specific region on a track to control editability, with native undo support for safe changes.

Instructions

Set region lock state with native undo.

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_region_lock"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail – that changes are covered by native undo – but says nothing about what locking affects, whether it conflicts with existing locks, or why confirm_delete exists on a non-destructive operation.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a mutation tool with six nested parameters it is under-sized rather than appropriately concise. Efficiency here comes at the cost of necessary detail.

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?

Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the definition leaves an agent without enough information to invoke this mutation correctly: no parameter semantics, no concurrency guidance for expected_revision, and no explanation of dry_run or confirm_delete.

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 six nested fields, and it mentions none of them. Field names like enabled and dry_run are somewhat self-explanatory, but confirm_delete and expected_revision are unexplained and potentially confusing in a lock-toggle context.

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 ('Set region lock state'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like set_region_mute, set_region_gain, and set_region_fades. However, 'lock state' is slightly ambiguous about what locking a region actually prevents, so it falls short of fully explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., required permissions or track/region existence), and no exclusions. 'With native undo' hints at reversibility but is not usage guidance.

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