Retrieves all parameters of a MIDI FX slot on a track, including name, value, range, and default, to inspect and verify its exact settings.
Every parameter of one MIDI FX slot: name, value, range, default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | 0-based clip slot (scene row) on the track. | |
| track | Yes | Track id (UUID string from tracks.list, stable) or 0-based index (shifts when tracks are added or moved). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description contributes the return shape (name, value, range, default per parameter), but says nothing about behavior for an out-of-range or missing slot, nor why 'slot' here differs from a normal FX chain index.
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?
A single ten-word fragment with zero padding, and the returned-field list is front-loaded. It is efficiently sized but reads as a label rather than a sentence, leaving key framing implicit.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it only partially does (field names, no structure, units, or count). Combined with the unresolved meaning of 'slot' and no error/empty-slot behavior, an agent has enough to call the tool but not to interpret results confidently.
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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. However, the description's phrase 'one MIDI FX slot' implies slot is an FX chain index while the schema describes slot as a 0-based clip/scene slot, and the description does not resolve that conflict for the agent.
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 fragment states a specific resource and scope: all parameters of a single MIDI FX slot, with the returned fields enumerated. It is distinguishable from midi_fx_list and midi_fx_set_params, though it lacks an explicit verb (read/retrieve) and never names the 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?
No guidance on when to call this versus midi_fx_list (to discover slots) or params_list (for device parameters), and no stated prerequisites such as knowing the slot exists. The agent must infer 'inspect before midi_fx_set_params' on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.