Adjust a track's stereo position by setting its pan value from -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right), with 0 as center.
Set the pan position of a track.
Args: pan: Pan position from -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right). 0 = center.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | 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 include destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict this. The description states the core behavior but adds little beyond it. The pan range is more parameter semantics than behavioral disclosure, so the description adds only marginal context about side effects or operational impact.
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. It opens with the action, then provides a focused Args section for the pan parameter. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition 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 setter with two parameters, the description is mostly adequate but leaves a real gap: track_index is not described. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the pan range is documented, but the lack of index semantics and any usage context keeps this from being complete.
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 carries the burden for both parameters. It provides valuable semantics for 'pan' with the valid range from -1.0 to 1.0 and the meaning of 0. However, it omits any explanation of 'track_index', including whether it is zero-based or which track it refers to.
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 clearly states the action: 'Set the pan position of a track.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the pan concept distinguishes it from sibling set_track_* tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or mention which track is affected beyond the implicit track_index.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The pan range information is parameter guidance rather than usage guidance. An agent must infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.