Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

track_add

Add a new track to a Waveform project, specifying its kind (audio, midi, folder, submix, or automation), pan, and volume.

Instructions

Add a new track. kind ∈ {audio, midi, folder, submix, automation}.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "track_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
panNo
kindNomidi
nameYes
volume_dbNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It reveals the mutation by saying 'Add', but it does not describe effects on the current project, whether the new track becomes selected, any permissions needed, or what the tool returns. It mostly repeats the kind enum from the schema instead of adding behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient and places the core action first, though the brevity contributes to missing parameter and behavior detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits the semantics of required and optional parameters, defaults, side effects, and response behavior. It is not entirely inadequate because it states the core operation and allowed kinds, but significant gaps remain.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. It only repeats the kind enum already present in the input schema and says nothing about the required 'name' parameter or the meaning of pan and volume_db.

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 states the specific verb 'Add' and resource 'track', and enumerates the allowed kinds. This clearly distinguishes it from track_remove and from other creation tools like send_add or marker_add.

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 the tool is for creating a new track, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as bus_create, send_add, or clip_add, and it does not mention prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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