Ardour Ultra MCP

by Elias02345

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

set_track_gain

Idempotent

Set a track's gain in dB from -193 to +6 while ignoring group linkage to change one route independently.

Instructions

Set route gain in dB (-193..+6), ignoring group linkage.

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_track_gain"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context that group linkage is ignored and specifies the gain range, but it does not explain dry-run, confirmation, or expected-revision behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise, though the phrase 'ignoring group linkage' could be clearer.

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 mutates track gain through a nested request with several operational fields, yet the description only covers the gain range and group-linkage caveat. It lacks guidance on safe execution controls such as dry_run, expected_revision, and 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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter is a nested request object with five properties. The description only clarifies the gain_db range and omits meaning for track_id, dry_run, expected_revision, and confirm_delete, so it does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Set route gain') and gives the valid dB range, which is enough to distinguish it from gain-setting siblings such as set_send_gain or set_region_gain. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'ignoring group linkage' hints at a behavioral condition, but it does not tell the agent when that behavior matters or when another tool would be preferable.

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

Deploy Server