ismail: agent DAW (MCP server)

by newsbubbles

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Render

render

Bounce a project to WAV or MP3, optionally limiting bars, tracks, or stems, and get levels, clipping, and timing back.

Instructions

Render to renders/latest.wav (and renders/.wav). bars=[a,b] renders a window (fast iteration); tracks limits to those tracks (+ their sidechain sources, which stay silent); stems=True writes per-track files for analysis as 'track:'. Analysis of a windowed render and its stems still uses song bar numbers (bars outside the window raise). mp3='also' writes renders/.mp3 next to the wav, mp3='only' writes the named render as mp3 only (latest.wav is always written: analysis reads it); needs ffmpeg (on PATH, or the ffmpeg setting). wait: when the machine is busy, stand in line this long ('10m' default, '0' refuses at once). A bare number is minutes: wait='10' is ten minutes; for seconds write wait='600s'. Returns levels, clipping and timing; with a reference, whether it was compared since this render; after an mp3 or a named render, a "hear it" block: the file's full path, what is up now to hear it on (the phone page, the stage, a live engine, a feedback round) and one option chosen from that state.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mp3`	No	none
`out`	No
`bars`	No
`wait`	No	10m
`cache`	No
`stems`	No
`tracks`	No
`project`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0Oct 26, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / wait
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "10m",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.3.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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 names output files, explains that latest.wav is always written, notes that sidechain sources stay silent, warns that out-of-window bars raise, and documents ffmpeg and busy-wait behavior. It also previews return contents and the 'hear it' block.

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 output path is front-loaded and most clauses earn their place given the tool's complexity and the lack of schema descriptions. The single dense paragraph with semicolon-chained clauses is efficient but harder to scan than a more structured presentation.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the description is substantially complete about behavior and outputs. The main remaining gap is the undocumented cache parameter; the return-value explanation is less necessary because an output schema exists.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains most parameters in useful detail: bars, tracks, stems, mp3, out, and wait syntax including default and seconds form. However, it never explains the cache parameter and does not explicitly describe the required project parameter.

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 description states a specific verb and output resource: render to renders/latest.wav or renders/<out>.wav. It is clearly a rendering tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as play_file, batch, or the analyze_* tools.

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 gives clear contextual guidance for key options: bars=[a,b] for fast window iteration, tracks to limit scope, stems for per-track analysis, and mp3 modes for alternate outputs. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, 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