Skip to main content
Glama
ismail: agent DAW (MCP server)

ismail: agent DAW (MCP server)

Live Status

live_status

Reports live DAW mixing status and diagnoses audio stalls/dropouts using deck/track levels, faders, EQ, filters, safety gain reduction, runway, render health, headroom, and disk/commit health.

Instructions

Where the live set is: bar heard, each deck (on air or cued, fader, eq, filter, level, song), each track not on a deck (instrument, fader, level now and the loudest over the last 10 s, playing/next clip, render cost, errors), the safety chain's gain reduction since the last status, runway (the last scheduled change and what loops after it) and render health (backlog, late events, underruns). A STALLED line means the audio device stopped asking for audio. mixer: is the time a block takes to mix against its length (it climbs when other programs load the machine); headroom: is the real risk: the mixed audio still waiting when the device pulled, at its thinnest since the previous status, out of the 500 ms kept ahead (0 = a dropout, THIN under 125 ms). Judge a pause by headroom, not by the mixer %. deck='B' lists that deck's tracks and buses instead. Problems that arrive between calls (a dropped note, a stall) are added to the next reply of any live op. The last line is the machine's free commit and disk (takes are written to disk; a full disk stops the recording).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckNo
projectYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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 so well: it explains that a STALLED line means the audio device stopped requesting audio, that problems surface on the next reply of any live op, and that a full disk stops recording. It omits any explicit statement of read-only semantics or permission requirements, so it falls just short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is dense and nearly every clause carries real information, but it is delivered as one long run-on enumeration with no line breaks or grouping, making it hard to scan. The most actionable guidance ('Judge a pause by headroom, not by the mixer %') is buried mid-paragraph rather than front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description adds genuinely useful interpretation of ambiguous fields (mixer % vs headroom thresholds, STALLED, free disk). For a complex live-audio monitor, this is close to complete; only the `project` parameter and any read-only/auth expectation are unaddressed.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the optional `deck` parameter clearly ('deck='B' lists that deck's tracks and buses instead'), but the required `project` parameter is never mentioned or described, leaving half the schema undocumented.

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 opening 'Where the live set is:' establishes a clear resource (the live set's state) and the following list enumerates exactly what is reported: decks, tracks, safety chain, runway, render health. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like stage_status, stream_status, phone_status or machine_status, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Usage is only implied by the status-oriented content; there is no explicit 'call this when' or 'use X instead' routing. The note that 'Problems that arrive between calls ... are added to the next reply of any live op' hints at when this is useful, but it describes tool behavior rather than selection guidance.

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