Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

automation_envelope

Ramp a target parameter from start to end values across beats, adding or creating an automation lane with linear, exp, or sine curves.

Instructions

Convenience: ramp a target from start_value to end_value between start_beat and end_beat. shape ∈ {'linear', 'exp_in', 'exp_out', 'sine'}. exp_in starts slow then speeds up; exp_out is the inverse; sine is a smooth S-curve. Appends to an existing lane on the same target if one exists, otherwise creates a new lane.

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>",
      "start_beat": "<start_beat>",
      "end_beat": "<end_beat>",
      "start_value": "<start_value>",
      "end_value": "<end_value>"
    },
    "name": "automation_envelope"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
shapeNolinear
stepsNoNumber of intermediate points to render the curve
targetYes
end_beatYes
track_idYes
end_valueYes
start_beatYes
start_valueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains shape semantics (exp_in, exp_out, sine) and discloses the append-or-create lane behavior. It stops short of describing return values or effects on existing lane points, but the core mutation behavior is transparent.

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 sentences with no filler: purpose first, shape definitions second, lane behavior third. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation well but leaves gaps: it does not mention what the tool returns, when to prefer it over automation_add, or whether existing lane points are modified. This is adequate but not fully complete for an 8-parameter tool.

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 coverage is only 13%, but the description adds meaning to the key parameters: it explains what start_value, end_value, start_beat, end_beat, and target do in context, and details shape behavior beyond the enum. It does not elaborate on track_id, though steps already has a schema description.

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 action and resource: ramping a target value between beats with configurable shapes. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like automation_add or automation_clear.

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 description implies its use case via 'Convenience' and the ramp behavior, and the append-versus-create rule offers context. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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