Route multiple tracks into a new submix or stem bus for grouped mixing and control. Returns the bus track index and routing details.
Create a submix/stem bus and route specified tracks to it.
Args: name: Name for the bus track. source_track_indices: List of track indices to route to this bus.
Returns: Object with bus_track_index and routing info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| source_track_indices | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a bus is created, source tracks are routed, and returns bus_track_index plus routing info, but omits side effects like permissions, error behavior, or whether existing routing is altered.
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?
Two sentences plus brief Args and Returns sections, front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and return shape. It lacks usage context and behavioral details such as prerequisites or failure modes, but is largely sufficient for a basic creation tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It describes both parameters: name as the bus track name and source_track_indices as tracks to route to this bus, adding meaning beyond bare schema types though it does not specify index origin or format.
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 states a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'submix/stem bus', plus the routing action of specified tracks. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like insert_track or create_send, but the action is clear.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert_track or create_send. It only describes the action, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.