MCP Audio Studio

Set automation lane

upsert_automation

Create or update automation lanes for volume, pan, effects, plugins, or instrument parameters.

Instructions

Create or update an automation lane for master/track volume, pan, effect, plugin, or instrument parameters.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "upsert_automation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`max`	No
`min`	No
`name`	Yes
`color`	No		#ff9f43
`laneId`	No
`points`	No
`target`	Yes	Examples: master.volume, track:<id>.volume, track:<id>.pan, track:<id>.effect:<id>.mix
`enabled`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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.