MCP Audio Studio

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: tracks, audio clips, effects, plugins, automation, steps, mixer, EQ, transport, and project. Even closely related tools like add_effect and add_plugin are clearly differentiated by description (built-in effects vs. plugin formats).
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun pattern (add_track, update_track, remove_track, set_mixer, render_audio). There is one minor deviation (studio_ui), but it is clearly a UI action and does not disrupt the overall consistency.
Tool Count3/5
With 26 tools, the server is above the typical range and borders on excessive. However, the comprehensive scope of a DAW (tracks, clips, effects, plugins, automation, mixing, transport, rendering) makes the high count defensible, though it remains on the heavy side.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers project lifecycle, track management, clip editing, effects/plugins, automation, step sequencing, mixer/EQ, transport, and rendering. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated getter for individual tracks/clips (get_project returns everything), but these are not critical and do not impede core workflows.
Average 3.5/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 12 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 4, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds no further context about consequences, such as whether the lane and its associated automation data are permanently deleted or if the action is reversible. It simply restates the title without additional behavioral disclosure.
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 sentence with no redundant text, making it very concise. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though it does communicate the core action clearly.
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?
Given the tool's simple nature (1 parameter, no output schema), the description might suffice for basic understanding, but it lacks important context for a destructive operation. There is no mention of what happens to the automation data, whether the lane is deleted from the project permanently, or any relation to sibling tools like upsert_automation. The description is minimal and leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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?
The schema documents laneId as a required string with minLength 1, but the description provides no explanation of what laneId represents, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not mention the parameter at all.
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 'Remove an automation lane' with a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating it from sibling removal tools like remove_effect or remove_audio_clip by targeting automation lanes. However, it lacks elaboration on what an automation lane is or the removal scope, preventing a perfect score.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_automation or other remove_* tools. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context: it does not disclose side effects of setting playing=true, whether recording overwrites data, how position changes affect other state, or whether changes are immediate. The description's list of settings is scope information, not behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action verb and efficiently enumerates the affected settings. Every word earns its place, with zero wasted filler. It is appropriately concise for a setter tool, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 11 parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and minimal annotations. A one-sentence description is grossly inadequate for this complexity. Critical details are missing, such as the units for positionStep and loop points, whether applying tempo/time signature changes affects existing audio, and how the various flags (playing, recording, metronome) interact. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool for nuanced tasks like setting loop points in musical bars based on the description alone.
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. It lists high-level categories (tempo, swing, loop, etc.) but does not map them to the actual parameter names, and it notably omits 'stepsPerBeat' entirely. The description gives no per-parameter meaning beyond what can be inferred from the property names, and it fails to clarify units (e.g., loopStart/loopEnd intervals) or relationships between params (e.g., time signature vs numerator/denominator).
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 uses the specific verb 'Change' and identifies the resource as transport settings, enumerating the affected domains (playback, recording, tempo, time signature, swing, metronome, position, loop). This gives a clear, concrete scope. While it doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling tools like set_steps or set_mixer, the mention of 'transport' is a well-understood DAW concept and the list effectively differentiates it from project-level or mixer-level settings.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it changes. In the company of siblings like set_steps and set_mixer, there is potential for ambiguity (e.g., stepsPerBeat could be confused with a step sequencer tool), but the description does not clarify when set_transport is the appropriate choice or mention alternatives to consider.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description's 'Add' aligns with that. However, it discloses little beyond the VST3 note about exposing parameters/state for a native bridge. It does not describe side effects, slot ordering, failure modes, or return behavior, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful VST3 context. It is appropriately sized and every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover parameter meaning, usage context, or side effects. The sibling overlap with add_effect and update_plugin is unaddressed, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.
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%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the 7 parameters, but it does not. It only mentions 'parameters' in the context of VST3 exposing them, not the input parameter. The 'format' enum is self-explanatory, but uri, path, vendor, and trackId are left completely undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('plugin slot'), and enumerates the supported formats (builtin, WAM, VST3). It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on 'plugin slot' rather than effects, but does not explicitly contrast with add_effect, so it misses 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_effect or update_plugin. The description does not mention prerequisites, workflow context, or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds the context that it exports the 'complete' project, indicating full scope, and that the output is 'portable JSON', which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior like output size, whether it returns a string or file, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview. However, it omits details about what 'complete' includes, how the JSON is returned, and the meaning of the 'pretty' parameter. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete.
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?
The only parameter 'pretty' has no schema description, and the description does not explain it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The parameter name suggests pretty-printing, but no semantics are provided.
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 clearly states the verb 'Export' and the resource 'project', and adds the output format 'portable JSON'. This is specific and helps distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'import_project', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for backup/migration, nor does it compare with get_project or import_project. Only the implied use case of exporting is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, providing no safety hints, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists fields without explaining partial vs full updates, effect on unspecified fields, or return behavior. There is no mention of whether the operation is atomic or what conditions are required, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and concise list. However, it reads as a run-on list and could be structured better (e.g., separating fields into categories). It is appropriately sized for a simple update tool but not perfectly organized.
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 tool with 10 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotation context, the description is minimal. It does not explain valid combinations, whether type changes are allowed, or what the 'parameters' object accepts. The absence of usage examples or side-effect notes leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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. It names several updatable fields but omits others like octave, waveform, instrumentKind, and instrumentName. It also fails to explain the 'parameters' object structure or the meaning of 'oscillator' relative to 'waveform'. This is incomplete and only partially helps the agent understand the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool updates a track and lists the specific fields (name, color, type, instrument, preset, oscillator, instrument parameters). The verb 'update' plus resource 'track' distinguishes it from siblings like add_track, remove_track, and update_audio_clip.
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: use when you need to modify track properties. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not explain when to use update_track versus other update tools like update_effect or update_audio_clip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation, and the description adds that the track is linked to specific instrument slot types. However, it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites like an open project, or how adding interacts with existing tracks, so the additional behavioral context is limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the action, resource, and a key distinction. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and the sparse annotations, the description leaves out parameter semantics, prerequisites, and usage context. An agent might understand the high-level action but cannot confidently determine optional field values or when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools.
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%, and the description only partially maps to the 'type' and 'instrumentKind' parameters. It does not clarify 'note', 'color', or the meaning of default values, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's enum names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific action 'Add' with a clear resource 'track' and distinguishes between instrument and audio tracks. It also mentions the link to built-in, sampler, WAM, or VST3 slots, which separates it from sibling tools like add_audio_clip or add_effect.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_track, remove_track, or add_audio_clip. The description simply states what the tool does without any exclusions or contextual triggers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as destructive. The description adds minimal context about removing a 'slot' specifically, but does not elaborate on consequences, reversibility, or side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, efficient and front-loaded.
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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the basic action. It lacks usage context, parameter elaboration, or any behavioral details beyond what annotations already state, making it inadequate for fully informed invocation.
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?
The description does not explain the parameters (trackId, pluginId) beyond implicating the track. With schema description coverage at 0%, the parameter semantics are left to the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('a plugin slot from a track'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_plugin or remove_effect.
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?
No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_effect or update_plugin. The context must be inferred from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It says 'set' but does not disclose whether this overwrites existing EQ gains, what happens when optional bands are omitted (e.g., reset to 0 or left unchanged), or any potential side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No filler or redundant wording.
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no helpful annotations, the description is far too sparse. It omits key details like whether parameters are optional, the range semantics already in the schema (though that's not in the description), and how the tool behaves. An agent gets little practical guidance beyond the core action.
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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'four-band EQ gains' and 'dB', implying the four numeric parameters, but it does not map to actual parameter names (low, lowMid, highMid, high) or explain the required trackId. The description adds some context but not enough to fully understand the parameters without inspecting the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it sets the four-band EQ gains in dB for a track. The verb 'set' and specific resource 'four-band EQ gains' make the purpose unmistakable and distinguish it from sibling tools like set_mixer or add_effect.
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 context is implied: use when adjusting EQ gains on a track. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are given, such as 'use add_effect for inserting effects' or 'use set_mixer for mixer levels.' The description does not fully guide when to choose this over similar audio tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing track), or what happens on conflict. It only mentions audio source types, which is more about parameters than behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Each sentence provides essential information about what the tool does and how to specify the audio.
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 description is too brief for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. It fails to mention that exactly one of dataUrl/sourceUrl is needed, that the track must exist, or what the response is. The agent might attempt to create a clip without audio.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies the key distinction between dataUrl and sourceUrl, which is not obvious from the schema alone. However, it does not explain the required parameters (trackId, name, startStep, lengthSteps) or their units/meaning, despite 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('audio file on a track'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like add_effect or add_track. It also adds a technical detail about data URL vs source URL, further clarifying the tool's function.
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?
The description provides no explicit comparison to alternatives such as update_audio_clip or remove_audio_clip. It implies usage for adding a new audio clip to a track but does not state when not to use it or how it differs from other add_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply restates the operation without adding any behavioral context beyond the annotations. While the annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, the description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the rename affects project file paths, open tabs, or external references) or any state requirements like 'there must be a current project.' No contradiction with annotations, but no added transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. It is perfectly concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks context about the 'current project' (e.g., what if none exists?) and does not mention any side effects that might impact the workspace. It is complete enough for a trivial rename, but could be improved.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that the 'name' parameter is the new project name, which is the key semantic meaning. For a single-parameter tool, this is adequate, though it does not mention constraints like uniqueness or format beyond the schema's built-in string length limits.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('current project'), and the title 'Set project metadata' matches. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like set_mixer or set_equalizer, which target different resources.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., update_project) would be more appropriate. The only hint is the tool name, which is insufficient for an agent to make a strategic choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation already signals the tool is destructive. The description adds that it removes the clip from a track, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the clip is permanently deleted, undo behavior) beyond what the annotation implies. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, succinct sentence that directly states the tool's function. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but the description omits parameter semantics and usage guidance. However, given the clear naming and destructive annotation, it is minimally sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool in a straightforward deletion scenario.
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. It does not explain the meaning or purpose of trackId and clipId. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description provides no additional detail, and the schema's $ref for clipId is structurally odd without explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'remove' with the resource 'audio clip' and location 'from a track', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_audio_clip, update_audio_clip, and remove_effect.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the tool name and description—use when you need to delete an audio clip—but there is no comparison to alternatives like update_audio_clip.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It states mutation ('set') but does not disclose whether unspecified parameters are preserved, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on invalid targets. This is a significant gap for a write operation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, enumerates properties efficiently, and contains no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of purpose but lacks behavioral details such as idempotency, handling of unspecified parameters, and error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further assumptions.
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 only 14% (target only). The description lists parameter names but adds little semantic meaning beyond them: e.g., 'pan' range is not explained, and 'send levels' gives only a loose hint about sendA/B. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('mixer channel') with enumerated properties (volume, panning, mute, solo, send levels) and target scope (track or master). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_equalizer or update_track.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies use for adjusting mixer parameters and mentions the target scope (track or master), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or note exclusions. Context is clear, though no explicit when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds the list of operations but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits such as whether changes are reversible, if trimming is destructive to audio data, or what happens with conflicting updates. This adds some value but not rich context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 13 words. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main operations supported by the tool, but it omits crucial context such as the need to specify trackId and clipId to identify the clip, any constraints on updates, and behavioral details like whether an empty update is allowed. Given no output schema and basic annotations, this leaves gaps for an agent.
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 explaining parameters. It mentions operations (move, trim, rename, gain) which loosely map to startStep/lengthSteps, name, and gain, but does not explicitly map them to parameter names. Ambiguity remains, e.g., 'move' could mean changing trackId or startStep.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs and resources: 'Move, trim, rename, or change the gain of an audio clip.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_audio_clip and remove_audio_clip by enumerating the exact update operations.
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 context is implied: use this to modify an existing audio clip. However, there is no explicit mention of when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., update_effect for effects, remove_audio_clip for deletion), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish the safety profile (mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds that it can change specific fields, but it does not disclose return value, merge semantics for the parameters object, or any prerequisites. It neither contradicts nor substantially extends the annotation information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action verbs and clearly states the target resource. No filler or redundant 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?
With six parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical behavioral details such as whether parameters merges or replaces existing values, what the response format is, and whether partial updates are permitted. The operation is a mutation, so an agent would need this information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It maps enabled/name/mix/parameters to the respective actions, but leaves 'bypass' ambiguous—it does not clarify whether bypass is a boolean on enabled or a key in parameters. The required IDs are self-explanatory from their names, so meaning is partially compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as modifying an existing effect slot, listing specific operations (enable, bypass, rename, mix, change parameters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect (creation) and remove_effect (deletion).
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?
The description implies usage on an existing effect slot but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as set_equalizer or update_plugin. It fails to name when-not or alternatives, leaving it to the agent to infer from sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the context of the 'track effects chain' but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as whether the effect is appended to the chain, how mix/parameters are applied, or what happens on repeated additions. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It lists the types in a compact and readable way, with no wasted words.
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?
With no output schema and a moderately complex parameter set (including a nested 'parameters' object), the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, the purpose of the 'parameters' object, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like add_plugin. The description covers only the basic action, leaving critical context missing.
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%, and the description does not compensate. It lists the possible values for 'type' (which are already in the enum) but offers no explanation of 'mix', 'trackId', or the nested 'parameters' object. Users must rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with a nested object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Add a filter, delay, reverb, distortion, compressor, chorus, or limiter to a track effects chain.' It specifies the resource (track effects chain) and enumerates the exact effect types, making it unambiguous and distinguishing from sibling tools like add_plugin.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies clear use context: use this when you want to add any of the listed effect types to a track's effects chain. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as add_plugin for third-party plugins, so it stops short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the constraint that only 'recent' renders are accessible, plus the output format (WAV), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential errors or further behavioral details, so it adds only modest value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, resource, and identifier without waste. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the output (WAV file) and the input (render ID), and the annotations cover safety semantics. It does not describe error cases, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.
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% (the schema has no description for renderId). The description mentions 'by render ID' but does not compensate for the lack of parameter details—it merely references the parameter name without explaining its meaning, format, or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and names the resource 'rendered WAV file' with a clear identifier ('by render ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_audio_clip or render_audio, which are mutation or creation actions.
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?
The description implies usage when one has a render ID and needs the WAV file, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide any exclusions. The word 'recent' hints at a limitation, but it is not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it toggles steps and sets note parameters, but doesn't disclose whether updates overwrite or merge existing steps, what happens with patternLength, or whether the whole sequence is replaced. Some value is added, but key behavioral traits remain opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value. No filler or redundancy. The description is concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and update capabilities, but leaves out the effect of patternLength and the broader mutation mechanics (e.g., whether updates are cumulative or replace the pattern). With no output schema, the return behavior is also unknown. Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. It does partially: 'toggle a step' maps to the 'enabled' field, and note/velocity/gate map directly to the nested update object's properties. However, trackId and patternLength are not explained, though they are relatively self-explanatory from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it edits step-sequencer or piano-roll notes, with a specific verb ('Edit') and resource. It lists concrete capabilities (toggle a step, set MIDI note, velocity, gate length), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_audio_clip or set_mixer.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The description only states the action itself without prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of other tools. It doesn't provide context like 'for modifying MIDI patterns' or 'instead of updating track parameters.' This is similar to the update_drive example which scored 2.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only negative hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context like 'opaque plugin state' and the various operations, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing parameters are overwritten or whether a plugin must already exist. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence efficiently lists all main operations with no filler words. The description is front-loaded and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no positive annotations, the description provides a good overview but omits important operational details such as required identification (trackId/pluginId), update semantics, and expected response. It is better than a bare definition but not fully complete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. It does map 'rename' to name, 'change parameters' to parameters, 'store opaque plugin state' to state, and 'enable/bypass' to enabled. However, it does not explain trackId/pluginId or clarify the relationship between 'bypass' and the boolean enabled, leaving some parameters without meaningful context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly enumerates specific actions ('Enable, bypass, rename, change parameters, or store opaque plugin state') on a defined resource ('a plugin slot'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_plugin (added) and update_effect (effects).
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?
The description implies usage for updating an existing plugin slot, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_plugin or remove_plugin. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (all false), and the description adds context about what can be automated. However, it does not disclose important behavioral details like whether existing lanes are replaced or how laneId is used for updates. No contradiction between the description and annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded, and free of filler. It efficiently states the action and scope without wasted words.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial details such as how laneId identifies an existing lane for updates and what the points array represents, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly without additional information.
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 only 13% (only target has a description). The description adds slight detail to target (e.g., 'instrument parameters') but does not explain other parameters like name, min, max, color, points, laneId, or enabled. Low coverage is not compensated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create or update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'automation lane'. It also lists the scope (master/track volume, pan, effect, plugin, or instrument parameters), which distinguishes it from siblings like remove_automation and set_mixer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for automation lanes and contrasts with remove_automation via 'Create or update,' but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear enough to guide basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description essentially restates that with 'Replace'. It adds that the source is an exported JSON document, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as irreversibility, potential loss of unsaved changes, or validation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with good annotation coverage, the description adequately covers purpose and input. It doesn't explain error handling or prerequisites, but these are not critical given the simplicity and annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description explicitly clarifies that the 'json' parameter is the exported project JSON document. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema (string, minLength 2), even though it doesn't detail the JSON structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Replace') with a clear resource ('current project') and source ('exported project JSON document'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like export_project or new_project by indicating it replaces the existing project with an imported one.
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: use when you need to replace the current project with an exported JSON document. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., set_project) nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While the annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable context by stating it 'replaces the current project,' making the exact destructive behavior explicit. It also implies a reset to a demo-ready template, which is useful beyond the generic annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action, the result, and the key side effect (replacement) efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive creation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core action and side effect, but does not detail what 'demo-ready' entails, default behavior when 'name' is omitted, or what the tool returns. Given the presence of annotations, this is acceptable but not thorough.
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?
The schema has one optional 'name' parameter, but the description does not explain its purpose or how it affects the created project. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the semantics of 'name' unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('fresh demo-ready audio project'), and explicitly notes that it replaces the current project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_project or import_project, which modify or import rather than create anew.
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?
The phrase 'fresh demo-ready' implies the use case of starting a new demo project, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like set_project or import_project. Usage is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds context: 'offline-render' signals it is not real-time, and 'stereo 16-bit WAV' gives output format. This is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action, format, and return value. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return behavior ('return playable audio') and high-level operation, but the missing parameter semantics create a gap. It is largely complete for calling with defaults but insufficient for parameter customization.
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?
The schema describes 3 parameters, but the description does not explain any. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. For example, 'bars' behavior (total vs loop length) is ambiguous; 'name' and 'sampleRate' are intuitive but not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'render' with a clear resource ('the current project') and specifies output as 'a stereo 16-bit WAV file and return playable audio.' This distinguishes it from 'export_project' which likely saves to disk, though no sibling is explicitly named.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion of alternatives. The phrase 'return playable audio' implies it is for immediate playback vs exporting, but it is not explicit. Sibling tools like export_project and get_render could benefit from differentiation, but that is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not add behavioral information beyond what the annotations already provide (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It does not mention side effects, error cases, or the result of the operation. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description offers no extra context, so a low score is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise while remaining clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough information for an agent to understand what the tool does and infer what parameters to supply. It lacks details about return values or errors, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema has no descriptions for the parameters, the phrase 'from a track effects chain' implies that trackId identifies the track and effectId identifies the effect to remove. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare parameter names and types, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource: 'an effect from a track effects chain.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect, update_effect, or remove_plugin, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the context in which to use the tool: when an effect needs to be removed from a track's effects chain. While it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the action is straightforward and the context is evident, satisfying the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already establish that this is destructive (destructiveHint: true), the description adds valuable detail by listing exactly what gets removed: notes, clips, mixer channel, effects, plugins, and automation. This goes beyond the annotation and informs the user about the cascading impact, which is essential for a 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists impacted elements efficiently. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler, achieving high clarity in a compact form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's scope. It does not cover potential side effects like undo behavior or error conditions, but these are not required given the annotations and simplicity. The context is sufficient for an agent to understand what will happen.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has a single required parameter, trackId (string, minLength 1), with no description in the schema. The tool description does not explicitly explain how to obtain or provide trackId, but the parameter name is self-explanatory. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal compensation, but the simplicity of a single identifier parameter keeps this at a viable baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Remove a track') and enumerates the scope of the operation ('notes, clips, mixer channel, effects, plugins, and related automation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_audio_clip or remove_effect, which target individual components, making the purpose unmistakable.
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?
The description implies this tool is for removing an entire track with all associated elements, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For example, there is no guidance like 'if you only need to remove a single clip, use remove_audio_clip instead.' The intended usage is inferred from the context rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'visual' behavior but doesn't disclose additional details like whether it opens a new window or affects the current session. With strong annotations, the bar is lower, and the description provides some but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action 'Open the complete interactive DAW.' Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose and trigger. It is complete enough for an agent to know when to invoke it, and the sibling tools provide additional context. No further details are necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description appropriately focuses on usage rather than parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Open the complete interactive DAW', and clarifies the visual use case with 'Use this when the user wants to see or edit the studio visually.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific programmatic edits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides an explicit trigger: 'Use this when the user wants to see or edit the studio visually.' This is clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or scenarios where other tools should be used. For a zero-parameter tool with a simple purpose, this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the exact content of the returned project and asserting its authoritative nature, which helps the agent understand the scope and reliability of the response. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It lists all relevant components without any filler or redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a project-wide getter with no output schema, the description provides a complete inventory of what the agent can expect. It is sufficiently detailed for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool, especially with the clear sibling contrast.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema's properties object is empty, so the description correctly omits parameter details. With no parameters, the baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Return' and names the resource as 'the authoritative DAW project.' It enumerates the included components (transport, tracks, steps, clips, mixer, effects, plugins, EQ, automation), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that each modify a single component.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'authoritative' implies this is the canonical read for the full project state, and sibling tools are all mutations or targeted updates, making the usage context clear. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name an alternative, so it misses the bar for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-audio-studio-mcpapp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-audio-studio-mcpapp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-audio-studio-mcpapp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-audio-studio-mcpapp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-audio-studio-mcpapp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/flujo-app/mcp-audio-studio-mcpapp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/flujo-app/mcp-audio-studio-mcpapp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server