Adjust a track's send level in dB to control how much signal routes to a bus or effect. Specify source track, send slot, and target volume for mix balancing.
Set the volume of a track send.
Args: track_index: Source track index (0-based). volume_db: Send volume in dB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume_db | Yes | ||
| send_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It confirms a mutation occurs but says nothing about whether the change is undoable, what happens if send_index is out of range, valid dB ranges, or what is returned.
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, front-loaded with the action, and the Args block is a clean per-parameter list with no filler. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it under-delivers on content.
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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough: the required send_index parameter is undocumented and no behavioral context is given.
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 documents track_index (0-based) and volume_db (in dB) but omits send_index entirely even though it is a required parameter, leaving the most ambiguous argument completely unexplained.
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 specific verb and resource ('Set the volume of a track send'), which distinguishes it from the sibling set_track_volume and from create_send/delete_send. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative tools or clarify how it relates to set_send_dest_channels/set_send_source_channels.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a send must already exist on the source track), and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.