Removes an effect from a track, return bus, or master chain and shifts later slots up; the change is undoable.
Remove an effect from a chain; later slots move up. Undoable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | 0-based position in the chain (signal order). | |
| chain | Yes | Effect chain: {"track": <id or index>}, {"return_bus": <index>} or "master". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds two facts annotations cannot express: that subsequent slots re-index upward after removal, and that the operation is undoable. This meaningfully softens the destructiveHint and tells the agent a follow-up re-index is needed for any stored slot positions. Return payload and failure modes (invalid slot, empty chain) remain unstated.
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?
Two dense clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the side effect, then the safety note. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.
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 mutation with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, this covers the essential surprises (index shifting, undoability). It leaves out only error/edge behavior and whether the chain must be non-empty, which is minor given the rest of the definition.
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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only indirect context ('later slots move up' clarifies that slot indices are positional and shift), but gives no guidance on the chain variants (master/track/return_bus) or on preferring stable track IDs over 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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('Remove an effect from a chain') and states the resulting state change ('later slots move up'). It is clearly distinct from devices_add/set_bypass, though it uses 'effect' while the tool/sibling names use 'device', which adds a small terminology hop.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the removal semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never distinguishes itself from the adjacent removal tools such as midi_fx_remove or mixer_remove_return, so the agent must infer that this one is for audio/instrument device chains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.