MCP Audio Studio

Update audio clip

update_audio_clip

Modify audio clips by moving, trimming, renaming, or adjusting gain to fit your mix.

Instructions

Move, trim, rename, or change the gain of an audio clip.

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>",
      "clipId": "<clipId>"
    },
    "name": "update_audio_clip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gain`	No
`name`	No
`clipId`	Yes
`trackId`	Yes
`startStep`	No
`lengthSteps`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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.