mainstage-mcp

set_channel

Adjust a MainStage channel strip’s fader level (dB), pan (-1 to +1), or mute setting within a specific concert patch by providing concert, patch, and channel identifiers.

Instructions

Change fader (dB), pan (-1…+1) or mute of a channel strip in a patch.

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": {
      "concert": "<concert>",
      "patch": "<patch>",
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "set_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pan`	No
`muted`	No
`patch`	Yes
`channel`	Yes	Channel strip name (or 1-based number)
`concert`	Yes
`volume_db`	No
`wait_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Change' (a mutation) but omits whether at least one of pan/muted/volume_db must be supplied, what happens if all are null, whether changes are live-audible, and what wait_seconds does.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the mutable properties front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and near-zero schema descriptions, so the description should do more. It covers the headline operation and units for two fields but leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently, particularly around optionality and wait_seconds.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 14% — just 'channel' is documented — yet the description only adds meaning for two of the seven parameters, giving units for the fader (dB) and a range for pan (-1…+1). The roles of concert, patch, muted, and especially wait_seconds remain undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb ('Change') and enumerates the exact mutable properties (fader in dB, pan, mute) on a 'channel strip in a patch'. An agent can tell what the tool touches, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like set_patch_settings or add_playback.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related mixer operations. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the name and one sentence.

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

Deploy Server