Set a take FX plugin parameter by track, item, take, FX, and parameter index. Use normalized 0-1 values and check min/max with take_fx_get_param.
Set a parameter value on a take's FX plugin.
Args: value: New value (typically normalized 0-1; check min/max via take_fx_get_param).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| fx_index | Yes | ||
| item_index | Yes | ||
| take_index | Yes | ||
| param_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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the write-but-repeatable nature is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the value is typically normalized 0–1 and range checks belong to take_fx_get_param. It does not say what happens on out-of-range values or whether indices are 0- or 1-based.
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?
Two short lines, action first, parameter note second – front-loaded and free of filler. The Args block formatting is slightly informal but costs nothing in clarity.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only two annotation hints, this is thin. It omits index conventions, expected failure modes (missing FX/param), and the effect of the change, leaving an agent to guess at everything except the value semantics.
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% across 6 required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only 'value' (normalized 0–1, min/max via the getter); the five index parameters (track/item/take/fx/param_index) are entirely unexplained, including indexing base and valid ranges.
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 a parameter value on a take's FX plugin.' The phrase 'take's FX plugin' distinguishes it from the many track_fx_* siblings without naming them explicitly. Clear, but no explicit sibling differentiation.
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 when-to-use vs when-not guidance, but the description does route the agent to a prerequisite: 'check min/max via take_fx_get_param', which is a useful implied workflow. That is the only usage context offered, so it sits at implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.