UVR maestro

by romanstark

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

separate_batch

Destructive

Plan or queue audio stem separation for every file in a directory, track aggregate results, and cancel pending jobs.

Instructions

Plan or queue per-file separation with aggregate results and cancellation.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	Yes	Catalog ID, upstream filename or alias from list_models.
`confirm`	No	True executes the stated change. False returns its plan.
`options`	No	Explicit overrides for every input file.
`profile`	No	Profile filename without extension. None uses default.
`input_dir`	Yes	Local directory. Direct child audio files are processed.
`output_dir`	Yes	Output root. A unique run subdirectory prevents overwrites.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that results are aggregated and cancellation is supported, but it omits important behavioral context such as what files are written or that confirm=false returns a plan without side effects.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity, but it is structurally efficient.

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?

Given a destructive batch operation with six top-level parameters and a large nested options object, a single sentence is insufficient. It should clarify batch scope, confirm semantics, and differentiation from single-file separation siblings even though schema and output schema carry much of the detail.

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%, so all six top-level parameters and the nested options are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb and resource ('per-file separation') and mentions planning/queueing, so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it does not clarify how this differs from siblings like start_separation, separate_audio, or separate_ensemble, leaving the batch semantics vague.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling separation tools. The phrase 'Plan or queue' hints at confirm behavior, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.