Gizmos Audacity MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Track Set

audacity_track_set

DestructiveIdempotent

Set an Audacity track's name, gain, pan, mute, or solo state by track index or name. Use it to adjust individual track volume and stereo placement before mixing or exporting.

Instructions

Set track properties: name, gain in dB (the track's volume slider; status reports it back as a linear factor), pan (-1..1), mute, solo.

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>"
    },
    "name": "audacity_track_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pan`	No	normalized pan: -1 full left, 0 center, 1 full right
`mute`	No
`name`	No
`solo`	No
`track`	Yes	track index (0-based) or unique track name
`gainDb`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	No
`pan`	No
`kind`	Yes
`mute`	No
`name`	Yes
`solo`	No
`start`	No
`volume`	No
`focused`	No
`channels`	No
`selected`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly supplied. The description earns credit for one genuinely useful cross-tool detail: gainDb is the volume slider value in dB and status reports it back as a linear factor, which prevents a unit mismatch. However, it never explains what is 'destructive' about setting properties, nor whether omitted properties are left untouched (partial update semantics).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list in reading order and no filler. The nested parenthetical for gainDb is dense but each clause carries information the schema lacks.

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-value explanation is not required, and the field enumeration covers the visible surface of the mutation. Still, for a destructive, idempotent setter with six parameters and low schema coverage, the description omits partial-update semantics, failure behavior for nonexistent tracks, and why the operation is flagged destructive.

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 33%, with 'pan' and 'track' fully documented in the schema and gainDb, name, mute, solo left bare. The description compensates partially by labeling gainDb as a dB volume-slider value and pan's range, but does not state gainDb's -36..36 bounds, the name max length, or the behavior of mute/solo being omitted versus set false.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a specific resource ('track properties') and enumerates the settable fields, so an agent can distinguish it from audacity_clip_set or audacity_envelope_set by target object alone. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools or the boundary between track-level and clip-level settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., the track must already exist, or that the index is 0-based and stable), and no mention of alternatives such as track creation or editing. The agent must infer usage entirely from the field list.

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

Deploy Server