Arm or disarm a track for recording by specifying its index. Use it to control which tracks capture audio or MIDI during a session.
Arm or disarm a track for recording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| armed | Yes | ||
| index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the mutation (arm/disarm) but says nothing about whether arming is exclusive and disarms other tracks, what permissions or preconditions apply, or what happens on an invalid index.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single terse sentence with no waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficiently structured, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits index semantics, arm-exclusivity behavior, and any confirmation of success, all of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter meaning. 'Arm or disarm' loosely implies the 'armed' boolean, but 'index' is completely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it is zero-based, one-based, or a track ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb pair and resource: arm/disarm a track for recording. It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from adjacent siblings such as set_record_input or record, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g. that the track must already exist, or that this is a precondition for the record tool), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.