Ardour Ultra MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_track_mute

Idempotent

Mutes or unmutes a specific track in an Ardour session by setting its mute state explicitly. Use it to silence a track during mixing without changing its level, routing, or automation.

Instructions

Set route mute explicitly.

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_mute"
  }
}

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

D1.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague word "explicitly," without explaining how the enabled boolean toggles mute state, what dry_run does, or why confirm_delete appears on a mute operation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The sentence is short and front-loaded, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than useful concision. It spends words on "explicitly" without conveying actionable information.

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?

Even with annotations and an output schema, the description leaves the request object structure and key parameter semantics unexplained. For a state-changing tool with dry_run and confirm_delete fields, this is insufficient to call it confidently.

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 sole request parameter is an object containing track_id, enabled, dry_run, confirm_delete, and expected_revision. The description mentions none of these fields, so it provides no semantic guidance beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says "Set route mute explicitly," which roughly restates the tool name rather than clarifying that it mutes a track. "Route" is also inconsistent with the track-focused tool name and sibling set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to siblings such as set_region_mute or set_track_solo. An agent gets no help deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server