Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

automation_add

Add automation lanes to a track for volume, pan, or plugin parameters, replacing any existing lane on the same target with new beat-value points.

Instructions

Add an automation lane to a track. target ∈ {'volume', 'pan', 'plugin/<plugin_id>/'}. points = [{beat, value, curve?}]. Replaces any existing lane on the same target.

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_id": "<track_id>",
      "target": "<target>",
      "points": "<points>"
    },
    "name": "automation_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pointsYes
targetYes
track_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly discloses that adding a lane replaces any existing lane on the same target, which is a key side effect. With no annotations to carry this burden, this disclosure is valuable, though it does not mention failure modes or undo behavior.

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?

The description is concise and free of extraneous content. Important constraints are packed into short, clear statements.

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 description covers the core action and the replace side effect but omits details such as return behavior, error conditions, and more precise parameter semantics. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, this leaves some gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The description defines the allowed target values and the points array structure, which partially compensates for zero schema coverage. However, track_id is not explained, and the semantics of beat, value, and curve are left implicit despite the schema also providing no descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Add an automation lane to a track') and the exact scope of the target parameter, including the supported format for plugin parameters. It also notes the replace behavior, which distinguishes it from related automation tools.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as automation_envelope or automation_clear. The description states what it does but not the conditions under which it is the preferred choice.

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