Toggle any FX plugin's active state on a specific track by providing track and FX indices and a boolean flag.
Enable or disable an FX plugin.
Args: enabled: True to enable, False to bypass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | Yes | ||
| fx_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?
The description adds some behavioral context by explaining that False means 'bypass,' which clarifies the enabled semantics. The destructiveHint=false annotation already covers safety, and the description does not contradict it. However, it does not disclose behavior around invalid indices or whether the operation is reversible beyond what the annotation implies.
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 very brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is minimal and directly explains the Boolean meaning of the key parameter. No unnecessary words are present.
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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits any guidance on how to interpret track_index and fx_index, and it does not mention whether indices are zero-based or how they relate to the FX list returned by other tools. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to call the tool.
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%, and the description only explains the 'enabled' parameter. The required 'track_index' and 'fx_index' parameters are left to be inferred from their names; no detail is given about indexing conventions or how to obtain valid indices.
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 tool's action: 'Enable or disable an FX plugin.' The verb and resource are specific and easy to understand. It does not explicitly distinguish track FX from take FX, so it relies partly on the tool name for 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?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like take_fx_set_enabled or track_fx_get_enabled. It does not mention prerequisites, index sourcing, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.