Gizmos Audacity MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Batch

audacity_batch

Destructive

Batch clean and master audio files in Audacity using isolated temporary tracks, with dry-run previews, before/after measurement, and originals left intact.

Instructions

Clean/master audio files in Audacity using isolated temporary tracks and the reviewed pipeline. Preflights all paths/steps, dryRun lists jobs, and original tracks stay intact. Pause shortening requires an empty project because sync-lock may shift other tracks. Stops at the first failure; completed outputs are retained. Optional before/after reports measure the rendered result. Current solo tracks are refused because they could silence temporary-track exports.

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": {
      "jobs": "<jobs>"
    },
    "name": "audacity_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobs`	Yes
`dryRun`	No
`measure`	No
`channels`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jobs`	No
`notes`	No
`dryRun`	Yes
`results`	No
`completed`	No
`requiresEmptyProject`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing preflight validation, that original tracks stay intact, first-failure abort with retained outputs, and the refusal of solo tracks that could silence temporary-track exports. The destructiveHint is contextualized (pause shortening shifts timing and video sync), though the authentication/workspace prerequisites if any are not covered.

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?

Six tight sentences with the core action and safety model front-loaded, then caveats. Each sentence carries distinct information, though a couple pack two ideas (dryRun plus intact originals) that could be split for scanability.

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 batch tool with an output schema, the description covers preconditions, failure semantics, and side effects well. It stops short of explaining the jobs/channels parameters or the option set, which an agent configuring a batch would need.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate; it clarifies dryRun, measure ('before/after reports'), and the destructive nature of shortenPauses. It says nothing about the jobs array shape, the channels parameter, or the many per-job option knobs (preset, lufs, loudness, etc.), so the compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Clean/master audio files') plus the mechanism (isolated temporary tracks, reviewed pipeline), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from likely siblings such as audacity_pipeline or audacity_effect, leaving the agent to infer that this is the multi-file variant.

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 by 'batch' and reinforced by the dryRun listing behavior and the empty-project requirement for pause shortening. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the single-file pipeline/effect siblings, and no mention that jobs is capped at 50.

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

Deploy Server