Defines a track's automation behavior by selecting between trim/read, read, touch, write, or latch modes, enabling precise control over parameter automation in your project.
Set the automation mode for a track.
Args: mode: 0=trim/read, 1=read, 2=touch, 3=write, 4=latch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | 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 provide destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context by clarifying the numeric mode meanings (trim/read, read, touch, write, latch), which helps an agent understand what state the track is moved into. However, it does not disclose effects on existing automation writing/playback or whether the change is immediate or persistent.
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, front-loaded with the main action, and the Args section adds only useful parameter mapping. No filler or redundant 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 simple two-parameter setter, the description covers the mode values but omits details such as track_index conventions, return behavior, or consequences of the change. It is minimally viable but leaves some context gaps for an agent to infer.
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 does explain 'mode' values well, but it does not clarify 'track_index' semantics, such as whether it is zero-based or how it maps to a specific track. The compensation is partial.
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: 'Set the automation mode for a track.' It is clear and distinct from the many sibling track-setter tools, though it does not explicitly name or compare itself to any alternative tool.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no contextual hints beyond the literal action. An agent has to infer usage entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.