Load a named preset onto a specific effect on a track by providing the track index, FX index, and preset name.
Set the preset of an FX.
Args: preset_name: Preset name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_index | Yes | ||
| preset_name | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only set destructiveHint=false; the description adds no behavioral context such as whether setting a preset overwrites current FX parameters, whether the change is undoable, or how invalid preset names are handled. It does not contradict the annotations, but it carries little of the burden for a mutation operation.
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 first sentence is appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, the 'Args' section lists only preset_name with a redundant definition and omits the other two required parameters, making the structure incomplete and slightly misleading.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain valid preset_name sources, indexing conventions, or whether this applies to track or take FX. Even though get_fx_presets is a sibling, the definition does not point the agent to it for valid preset values, so the agent cannot reliably call the 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, but it only restates preset_name as 'Preset name,' which is nearly tautological. track_index and fx_index are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without meaning for two of the three required parameters.
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 starts with 'Set the preset of an FX,' a clear verb-plus-resource construction that distinguishes it from get/save preset tools. However, it does not specify whether this targets track FX or take FX, which is ambiguous given the parallel track_fx_* and take_fx_* sibling 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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like get_fx_preset, save_fx_preset, track_fx_set_param, or take_fx_set_param. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternative mentions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.