Lists built-in effect device types available for insertion through devices.add, covering EQ, filtering, dynamics, saturation, delay, reverb, modulation, and creative effects.
Omni's builtin effects that devices.add can insert, with their family: EQ, Filter, Compressor, Limiter, MultibandDynamics, Noise Gate, Transient Shaper, Saturator, Delay, Reverb, Chorus, Phaser and creative ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description has a lower burden. It adds useful domain context that these are Omni builtin effects grouped by family, but it does not clarify the return shape, whether the catalog is static, or what 'creative ones' includes.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted preamble, and the family list is useful for understanding scope. The phrase 'and creative ones' is slightly vague but does not undermine the overall efficiency.
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 zero-parameter catalog with rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate and does mention that types come with their family. However, with no output schema, it should more explicitly state what is returned and better distinguish this from sibling tools like midi_fx_types and devices_list.
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 tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.
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 identifies a specific resource: builtin effect types that devices.add can insert, and enumerates their families. This distinguishes it reasonably well from devices_list and devices_add, though it is phrased as a noun list rather than explicitly saying it returns the available device types.
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 connection to devices.add, suggesting the tool is for discovering insertable effect types. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives such as devices_list or midi_fx_types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.