Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bus_route

Route a track's audio output to a specified bus instead of the master bus, enabling grouped processing like drum bus comping and EQ.

Instructions

Route a track's output to a bus instead of master. Stack drums onto a 'Drum Bus' for one comp/EQ.

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": {
      "src_track_id": "<src_track_id>",
      "dest_bus_id": "<dest_bus_id>"
    },
    "name": "bus_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dest_bus_idYes
src_track_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so description must carry side-effect information. It states the routing change but doesn't mention whether it overrides existing sends, requires an existing bus, or is destructive.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main action first, followed by a concrete example. No unnecessary words.

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?

Provides enough for a basic understanding but omits important context such as whether the bus must already exist, side effects on existing routing, and error behavior. Sibling tools like bus_create are not referenced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameter names are somewhat intuitive but neither schema nor description explains expected ID formats, existence requirements, or relationships. Since schema coverage is 0%, description should compensate but doesn't.

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?

Clearly states the action: route a track's output to a bus instead of master. The example with Drum Bus reinforces the purpose.

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?

Provides an example use case (stacking drums) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like bus_create or send_add, nor mention prerequisites.

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