Skip to main content
Glama
LiveSession MCP
by Uri-Rosen

set_device_param

Set a single device or plug-in parameter by track and device name/index using a raw value, normalized 0–1 value, or named option, and return the before/after settings.

Instructions

Set one parameter on a device or plug-in, found by (fuzzy) name or index.

Give exactly one of:

  • value: raw value within the parameter's min..max (see get_device_params)

  • normalized: 0.0-1.0 across the parameter's range

  • option: a named choice for switch/menu parameters (e.g. "Low Cut") Returns the before/after values including the readable display string.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "parameter": "<parameter>"
    },
    "name": "set_device_param"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNo
optionNo
parameterYes
normalizedNo
track_typeNotrack
device_nameNo
track_indexYes
device_indexNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: fuzzy name resolution and a before/after echo of the parameter value with its display string. It does not disclose failure behavior (device/parameter not found) or whether a partial fuzzy match can silently target the wrong device, which matters for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted enumeration of the mutually exclusive argument modes and a one-line return note. No filler, and the exactly-one-of constraint is visually prominent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be described), the description covers the risky axes: which argument to supply, how the parameter is addressed, and the range source. The remaining hole is track_type/track_index semantics — an agent may not know that "track" is a non-defaultable scope selector in this API.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does most of the work: it defines the semantics of value (min..max, cross-referenced to get_device_params), normalized (0.0-1.0 range) and option (named choice for switch/menu params), and explains that the target is resolved by fuzzy name or index. It leaves track_index, track_type (default "track") and the device_name/device_index interplay unexplained, so it is strong but not complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set one parameter on a device or plug-in") plus the lookup mechanism (fuzzy name or index). It does not differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as set_device_parameter or get_device_parameters, leaving an agent to infer which is canonical.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a strong usage rule for the arguments ("Give exactly one of: value / normalized / option") and points to get_device_params for range discovery. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the near-identical siblings (set_device_parameter, set_control) and no preconditions or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools