Set mute or unmute state for a media item in a track by specifying track and item indices.
Mute or unmute a media item.
Args: mute: True to mute, False to unmute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mute | Yes | ||
| item_index | 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?
The description essentially restates the tool name and explains that the mute parameter can mute or unmute. It adds no behavioral context such as persistence, undo behavior, effect on playback, or return value. The annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, which is minimal, so the description carries more responsibility than it fulfills.
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 short and front-loaded, with an Args section for parameter documentation. However, it lists only one of three required parameters, making the structure efficient but incomplete.
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 tool has three required parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema, yet the description only explains the mute flag. The agent receives no guidance on what track_index and item_index mean, how to obtain valid values, or what happens on invalid input, leaving a significant completion gap.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it only documents the mute parameter ('True to mute, False to unmute'). The required parameters track_index and item_index are left completely unexplained, even though the agent needs to know how to identify the target media item.
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: 'Mute or unmute a media item.' It clearly refers to media items rather than tracks, which helps distinguish it from track-level siblings like set_track_mute. It does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives, but the meaning is unambiguous.
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 alternatives such as set_track_mute or set_item_volume. There are no prerequisites, no mention of how to locate item indices, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the mute parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.