Set the stereo panning for a specific track in an LMMS project. Specify the track index and a pan value between -100 (left) and 100 (right) to position audio in the mix.
Set the panning of a track.
Args: track_index: Zero-based track index panning: Pan value (-100=left, 0=center, 100=right)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| panning | Yes | ||
| 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, the description must carry disclosure of behavior. It states that the tool sets panning and documents the valid value range, but does not explain side effects, invalid-index handling, persistence, or whether automation may override the value. Adequate for a simple setter, but not rich.
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?
Single clear sentence plus a compact argument list with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and each line earns its place.
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 two-parameter setter, the description covers all input semantics needed to call it correctly, and an output schema exists for the return value. Minor gaps like requiring an existing track or failure behavior do not materially hinder correct invocation.
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 compensates by defining track_index as zero-based and panning as a scale from -100 to 100 with positional anchors. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare integer schema properties, though it omits behavior for out-of-range values.
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?
Description states a specific action—set the panning of a track—with a clear resource and property, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume. It is not a tautology and tells the agent exactly what the tool does.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the action is clear enough to imply its use case. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would make a sibling tool more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.