MCP Audio Studio

Add audio clip

add_audio_clip

Add an audio clip to a track at a specified step. Supports data URLs for embedded audio or source URLs for remote files, with control over length and gain.

Instructions

Place an audio file on a track. Pass a data URL for bundled audio or a source URL for a remotely hosted file.

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": {
      "trackId": "<trackId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "startStep": "<startStep>",
      "lengthSteps": "<lengthSteps>"
    },
    "name": "add_audio_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`gain`	No
`name`	Yes
`dataUrl`	No
`trackId`	Yes
`mimeType`	No	audio/wav
`sourceUrl`	No
`startStep`	Yes
`lengthSteps`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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.