Mute or unmute a specific track in an LMMS project by providing its zero-based track index. Control audio playback by setting the muted state to true or false.
Mute or unmute a track.
Args: track_index: Zero-based track index muted: True to mute, False to unmute
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| muted | No | ||
| track_index | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool mutates or unmutates a track, which conveys the side effect, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, return behavior, or possible constraints on track_index. For such a simple operation this is acceptable but not exhaustive.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is compact and directly relevant, containing no filler or repetition.
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 mute/unmute action, the description plus schema covers the required semantics completely. The presence of an output schema means return-value explanation is unnecessary, and no other context is needed to invoke this tool correctly.
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?
The input schema describes track_index and muted only with titles and types, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that track_index is zero-based and that muted=true means mute while muted=false means unmute, adding meaning the schema itself does not provide.
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 opens with 'Mute or unmute a track,' which clearly identifes the specific action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like solo_track or set_track_volume, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.
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 usage is implied by the action described: use this when you want to mute or unmute a track. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for similar situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.