Gizmos Audacity MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Compare Files

audacity_compare_files

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare before/after audio files with matching settings; returns reports and numeric changes only for metrics present on both sides, avoiding false zero changes for missing LUFS or true peak.

Instructions

Compare before/after audio files with the same measurement settings. Returns both reports and numeric changes only for metrics established on both sides; missing LUFS or true peak never becomes a zero change.

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": {
      "before": "<before>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "audacity_compare_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`after`	Yes
`before`	Yes
`backend`	No	auto
`targets`	No
`dualMono`	No
`timeoutMs`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	Yes
`delta`	Yes
`before`	Yes
`targetCheck`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral rule beyond that: reporting is symmetric, numeric deltas only appear for metrics measured on both sides, and a missing LUFS or true peak is never coerced into a zero change. It still omits cost/runtime characteristics of an analysis pass, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 operation and followed immediately by the non-obvious return contract. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description usefully covers the partial-metric edge case. However, for a 6-parameter tool with a nested targets structure and zero schema description coverage, the missing parameter guidance leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation choices (backend, targets ranges, timeouts).

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% across 6 parameters, including a nested `targets` object with five metrics each having min/max, a `backend` enum (auto/wav/ffmpeg), `dualMono`, and `timeoutMs`. The description does not explain any of these: not what targets thresholds do, not how backend selection affects results, not that dualMono changes measurement of channels. 'Same measurement settings' only hints that settings apply to both files, leaving the schema's semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Compare before/after audio files with the same measurement settings.' The before/after framing plus 'measurement settings' makes the operation unambiguous. It does not name a sibling such as audacity_measure_file to delineate when single-file measurement applies instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'before/after audio files' implies the comparison use case and 'same measurement settings' implies a controlled A/B workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for single-file measurement. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server