Ardour Ultra MCP

by Elias02345

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

split_region

Split a region at a specified position through its owning playlist, preserving native undo for safe edits.

Instructions

Split inside a region using its owning playlist; 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": "split_region"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'native undo,' but it does not explain what the split produces, how content is affected, or how dry_run, confirm_delete, and expected_revision behave.

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 filler. It is compact and readable, though 'using its owning playlist' is slightly jargon-heavy and 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 has an output schema, so return values need not be described. But for a mutation with several nested parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition is too sparse to guide correct invocation, especially around position semantics, confirmation, dry-run behavior, and revision expectations.

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 needs to compensate for undocumented request fields. It only vaguely implies a region and playlist context and says nothing about track_id, region_id, position, 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 specific verb and resource: splitting a region. It also adds the mechanism 'using its owning playlist,' which clarifies scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as trim_region.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Split inside a region,' so an agent can infer this is the tool for splitting. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server