Adjust a specific track's volume by passing its zero-based index and a volume level from 0 to 200 (100 is normal). Fix loudness issues or balance mix levels directly in LMMS projects.
Set the volume of a track.
Args: track_index: Zero-based track index volume: Volume level (0-200, 100=normal)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation ('Set') and constrains valid input (0-200, 100=normal) and zero-based indexing, but it does not mention failure behavior, out-of-range handling, or whether the change is immediate or audibly applied.
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 two compact sentences plus a tight args block with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and each parameter detail 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 simple 2-parameter mutation with an output schema, the essential invocation details are present: action, argument meanings, and range. Missing guidance about when to prefer this over mixer/master volume tools keeps it from being fully 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 coverage is 0% — the schema only gives integer types and titles. The description compensates by defining zero-based track_index and the volume scale with a normal level, which is essential for correct invocation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the volume of a track.' It is clear and distinct from siblings like set_mixer_channel_volume by resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.
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 implies usage for individual track volume control through its verb and object, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparisons to alternatives such as set_mixer_channel_volume, set_master_volume, or mute_track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.