Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

plugin_state_capture

Extract a VST plugin's base64 state blob from a saved .tracktionedit file by plugin name or unique ID to reuse manually-loaded plugin configurations programmatically.

Instructions

Read a saved .tracktionedit file and extract a VST plugin's base64 state blob by plugin_name (substring match) or unique_id. Used to copy a manually-loaded plugin's configuration (e.g. an SFZ loaded into sforzando) for re-use programmatically.

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": "plugin_state_capture"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unique_idNo
plugin_nameNo
edit_file_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is a read, that plugin_name matching is substring-based, and that the output is a base64 state blob. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but the core behaviors are covered.

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 sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the use case is stated concisely in the second sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and output format (base64 state blob). It does not mention potential error cases or multiple matches, but no output schema exists, so the explicit description of the return value is sufficient.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to all three parameters: edit_file_path as the .tracktionedit file, plugin_name with substring matching, and unique_id as an alternative lookup key. Unique_id is not further explained, but overall the description adds substantial semantic value.

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?

Description states a specific action (read/extract) on a specific resource (.tracktionedit file and VST plugin state blob), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like plugin_list or plugin_set_vst_state by focusing on extraction of a base64 state.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a clear use case: copying a manually-loaded plugin's configuration (e.g., SFZ in sforzando) for programmatic reuse. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intended scenario is well-defined.

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