Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

waveform_preset_read

Reads a .trkpreset XML file to extract the plugin type, parameters, and nested elements, enabling reuse of instrument or effect configurations in edits.

Instructions

Read a .trkpreset XML and return its element contents — the type, parameters, and any nested elements. Use this to grab a known-good instrument or effect configuration to drop into a generated edit.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "waveform_preset_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to the .trkpreset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the operation as a read ('Read a .trkpreset XML') and specifies what is returned. It doesn't discuss failure modes or side effects, but the read-only nature is explicit and appropriate for a simple file-read tool.

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, each earning its place: the first defines the operation and output, the second gives a concrete use case. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned (type, parameters, nested elements) and why to use it. It could add return-format or error-behavior details, but the essentials are present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, 'path', is already described as 'Absolute path to the .trkpreset'. The description's mention of '.trkpreset XML' reinforces but adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('.trkpreset XML'), and the exact payload returned (the <PLUGIN> element's type, parameters, and nested elements). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like waveform_preset_list and waveform_plugin_types.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to grab a known-good instrument or effect configuration to drop into a generated edit.' It provides clear context but does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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