Gizmos Audacity MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Envelope Set

audacity_envelope_set

Destructive

Sets a track's volume envelope from time and linear-gain points to shape volume changes; replace=true clears existing points first.

Instructions

Write a volume envelope on a track: points of time (s) and linear gain (1 = unchanged, 0.5 = -6 dB, 0.25 = -12 dB). Visible as the volume curve in Audacity. replace=true clears the old points first.

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": {
      "track": "<track>",
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "audacity_envelope_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`track`	Yes	track index (0-based) or unique track name
`points`	Yes
`replace`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`points`	Yes

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the concrete consequence ('replace=true clears the old points first'), which tells the agent exactly what is destroyed. It does not cover undo behavior, ordering requirements, or the 2000-point cap, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and semantics front-loaded, followed by the destructive behavior. 'Visible as the volume curve in Audacity' is mild filler but does help the agent confirm the effect is user-observable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core write semantics plus destruction are covered. Gaps remain for a mutation tool: no mention of ordering requirements for points, the array size limit, or failure behavior on an invalid track reference.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it defines the time unit for points, explains the linear-gain scale with dB equivalents (1 = unchanged, 0.5 = -6 dB, 0.25 = -12 dB), and explains the replace flag. The track parameter's index-vs-name semantics are left to the schema, which already documents them.

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?

The description states a specific verb+resource ('write a volume envelope on a track') and clarifies what the payload means (points of time in seconds and linear gain). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the set_* siblings (clip_set, labels_set, track_set), 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?

Usage is implied by the resource described (volume automation on a track), and the replace default is explained, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative tool for related tasks such as fades or track gain.

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

Deploy Server