Locate ReaEQ on a specified track, optionally adding it if missing. Returns its FX index or -1 if not found.
Find ReaEQ on a track, optionally adding it if absent.
Args: instantiate: If True and ReaEQ is not present, add it.
Returns: Object with 'ret' = the FX index of ReaEQ, or -1 if not found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instantiate | No | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return value (-1 if not found) and that instantiate adds the effect, which are useful behavioral details. But it doesn't cover auth or side effects beyond that.
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?
Front-loaded with the main purpose, then a concise Args/Returns section. No wasted words, though the Args/Returns format could be more integrated.
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 2-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return value and instantiate behavior, but leaves track_index semantics and any error conditions unexplained. It's minimally adequate but incomplete for robust use.
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 explains instantiate (add if absent) but doesn't explain track_index at all beyond the name. Baseline would be 4 if no params, but with 2 params and 0% coverage, this is a gap.
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?
States a clear verb (find) and resource (ReaEQ on a track), plus the optional instantiation behavior. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but the specific mention of ReaEQ distinguishes it from generic FX tools like track_fx_add_by_name.
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?
The instantiate arg implies when to use it (if you want ReaEQ added when absent), but there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and no prerequisites like requiring a valid track_index.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.