Toggle bypass on a MIDI FX slot for a track to let notes pass unchanged or re-enable processing. Undoable.
Bypass (or re-enable) one MIDI FX slot. Undoable.
| 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). | |
| bypassed | Yes | true = notes pass unchanged. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. 'Undoable' is a small piece of genuinely new behavioral information not stated by the annotations, but nothing is said about what bypassing actually does to the chain or whether it affects the slot's settings.
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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the undo property immediately after. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.
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?
A mutation tool with full annotation coverage and fully documented parameters, so most agent needs are met by structured fields. However, the description never clarifies the bypass-direction semantics (what 'bypassed=true' means in practice is only in the schema) or how this differs from the device-level bypass tool, leaving a sibling-selection gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, including the non-obvious boolean semantics ('true = notes pass unchanged'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema documents, which is the baseline for full coverage.
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?
Specific verb (bypass/re-enable) and specific resource (one MIDI FX slot) in a single sentence. It is reasonably distinguishable from the device-level sibling devices_set_bypass by naming the MIDI FX scope, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 use this instead of devices_set_bypass, midi_fx_set_params, or midi_fx_remove. The 'or re-enable' phrasing implies the boolean covers both directions, but there is no context about prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.