Gizmos Audacity MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Dialogs

audacity_dialogs

Lists Audacity's open windows and dialogs on Windows, and closes blocking dialogs (WM_CLOSE; Cancel for questions) to resolve timeouts caused by modal dialogs.

Instructions

On Windows, list Audacity's open windows and dialogs; close=true closes the dialogs (WM_CLOSE, like the window's X; Cancel for questions). Use it when a call times out: a modal dialog blocks the pipe.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "audacity_dialogs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`close`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`windows`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that (close=true is a mutation). It adds useful semantics beyond the annotations: WM_CLOSE behaves like the window's X, and question dialogs are answered with Cancel rather than confirmed. It does not say what happens on non-Windows platforms or whether unsaved state is lost.

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?

Three tight clauses: scope, parameter behavior, and when to call. Platform restriction is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the timeout use case is covered. The remaining gap is platform completeness — behavior on macOS/Linux is unstated, which matters for a tool explicitly scoped to Windows.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no inline documentation, so the description must carry it — and it does: close=true closes the dialogs via WM_CLOSE, implying the default false merely lists them. Format and side-effect semantics are conveyed, though not the exact return shape of the listing.

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?

States a concrete verb ('list') and resource ('open windows and dialogs') plus a platform scope ('On Windows'), and the close=true behavior. No sibling tool deals with dialogs, and the description makes the distinction obvious without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use it when a call times out: a modal dialog blocks the pipe.' That is a clear when-to-use rule. It does not name when-not-to-use or an alternative remedy, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Deploy Server