Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Gizmos Audacity MCP

Gizmos Audacity MCP

by gizmos-quest
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Select

audacity_select
Idempotent

Selects a time range across one or more Audacity tracks, all tracks when no track is specified, or the entire project when start and end are omitted.

Instructions

Select a time range on one or more tracks (all tracks when track is omitted; the whole project when start/end are omitted).

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_select"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo
startNo
trackNotrack index (0-based) or unique track name
trackCountNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context about default scope (all tracks, whole project), but omits whether an existing selection is replaced, which is the key behavioral question for a state-changing select operation.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the fallback behaviors parenthesized. Nothing extraneous.

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?

For a 4-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers the important defaulting behavior but leaves the time unit and the `trackCount` parameter unaddressed, and does not say whether prior selections are cleared. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description has real work to do. It clarifies the omission semantics for `track`, `start` and `end`, which is valuable beyond the schema, but leaves `trackCount` completely unexplained and never states the units for start/end (the 0-86400 bounds hint at seconds).

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+resource ('Select a time range on one or more tracks') and defines the scope of the selection. It is clear enough to distinguish from clip/label tools, though it never names a sibling alternative explicitly.

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 parenthetical implicitly guides invocation by explaining what happens when `track` or `start`/`end` are omitted, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-another-tool guidance or any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools