Set a track's monitor mode to control audio input monitoring, choosing between off, normal, or not when playing. Adjust monitoring per track for accurate recording and mixing.
Set the monitor mode for a track.
Args: monitor: 0=off, 1=normal, 2=not when playing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| monitor | 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 annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the parameter values: no mention of side effects, whether the change is immediate, what happens if the track index is invalid, or any other runtime behavior. The burden falls on the description, and it does not carry it.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact parameter legend. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and there is no redundancy or 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?
For a simple two-parameter setter, this is minimally viable: an agent can infer the call shape and monitor semantics. But it lacks any explanation of track_index, usage context, or expected behavior, leaving some ambiguity for a tool that has no output schema and minimal annotations.
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 document the monitor parameter's meaning and allowed values, which is valuable. However, track_index is left entirely to its name, with no explanation of indexing conventions or bounds, so the compensation is only 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 monitor mode for a track.' It also enumerates the accepted monitor values, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from the many other set_track_* 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without helping an agent decide between this and related track-setting tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.