PampaPilot MCP Server

by LeoLisena

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Ajustar volumen de pista

set_track_volume

Idempotent

Sets a track's volume from -60 to +12 dB and verifies the resulting level.

Instructions

Ajusta volumen -60..+12 dB y verifica la lectura posterior.

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": {
      "project_ref": "<project_ref>",
      "track_guid": "<track_guid>",
      "volume_db": "<volume_db>"
    },
    "name": "set_track_volume"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`volume_db`	Yes
`track_guid`	Yes
`project_ref`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that it 'verifica la lectura posterior' (verifies the subsequent reading), which is transparency beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that includes the action, the allowed range, and the verification step. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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 description captures the core operation and includes a verification behavior, but lacks parameter semantics and usage context. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so the main gaps are in parameter explanation and when to use this tool instead of alternatives.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the volume_db range already in the schema. It does not explain project_ref or track_guid, leaving the agent without guidance on where to obtain these identifiers.

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?

Description states 'Ajusta volumen -60..+12 dB' – clearly adjusting track volume with a specific range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_pan and set_track_mute, which handle different parameters.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The context implies use for setting track volume, but there are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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