headrush-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_scene

DestructiveIdempotent

Configure or edit a footswitch scene on a HeadRush pedal without saving, mapping block states, presets, color, and optional second state, then read back the result.

Instructions

Make footswitch 1-6 a scene, or edit one, without saving. Reads the result back.

blocks maps blocks in the chain to "on", "off" or "nochange", and replaces the scene's whole map: blocks it doesn't list become "nochange". doubling and path are "A", "B" or "nochange". presets maps blocks to a preset to recall, or "No Preset" to clear one. color is 0-13. Anything you leave out keeps its current value.

state 2 edits the second state, which each press alternates with the first. It needs an existing scene, and creates the second state if there isn't one. name is shared by both states.

Check mismatches and warnings in the result.

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": {
      "switch": "<switch>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`path`	No
`color`	No
`state`	No
`blocks`	No
`switch`	Yes
`presets`	No
`doubling`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: the `blocks` map replaces the scene's whole map, and the result should be checked for `mismatches` and `warnings`. There is a residual tension between 'blocks it doesn't list become nochange' and 'Anything you leave out keeps its current value' that leaves the exact overwrite semantics for `blocks` slightly ambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then parameter semantics in short scannable paragraphs; there is little waste. The backtick-dense phrasing and the overlapping 'replaces the whole map' / 'anything you leave out keeps its current value' statements cost some readability.

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 an 8-parameter destructive write tool, the description covers the mutation scope, state alternation, shared naming, and points the agent at `mismatches`/`warnings` despite an output schema existing. The only gap is that the precise merge-vs-replace behavior of the `blocks` map remains under-determined.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden and does: it defines `blocks` values ('on'/'off'/'nochange'), `doubling` and `path` enums, `presets` mapping including 'No Preset', the `color` range 0-13, `state` alternation behavior, and that `name` is shared by both states. Only `switch` is left implicit via 'footswitch 1-6'.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Make footswitch 1-6 a scene, or edit one, without saving') plus a scope qualifier that separates it from activate_scene and remove_scene_second_state. An agent can tell this is a scene-write operation on a footswitch slot without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it creates or edits without saving, and it states the prerequisite that `state` 2 needs an existing scene (creating the second state if absent). It stops short of naming explicit alternatives, so it never says to use activate_scene to switch to the scene or get_scene to inspect one first.

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