Locate ReaEQ on a track, optionally add it when absent, and retrieve its FX index for further processing.
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?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the conditional side effect: if instantiate is True and ReaEQ is absent, it will be added. It also specifies the return contract. It does not mention where the FX is inserted or error behavior, but the key behavior is transparent.
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?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.
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?
The return value and conditional side effect are clearly specified, which is good given there is no output schema. However, the required track_index parameter is not explained, and invalid-track or not-found edge cases are not addressed, leaving the tool slightly incomplete for autonomous 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?
The description explains instantiate well ('If True and ReaEQ is not present, add it'), but it does not describe track_index at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the required track_index parameter is left undocumented beyond its integer type, which is a significant 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find ReaEQ on a track', with an optional add behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from add-only tools like add_eq and other FX query tools.
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 description implies use for locating ReaEQ or ensuring it exists, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as add_eq for pure addition. An agent must infer the intended usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.