Retrieve the master fader level and balance plus return-bus details—index, name, fader, and insert count—so you can inspect the current mix configuration.
Master fader (dB) and balance, and the return buses (index, name, fader, insert count). Track faders and sends are in tracks.list.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned mixer sections, including insert counts on returns, which annotations cannot convey.
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 compact sentences: the first front-loads the returned mixer state, and the second routes track-level queries elsewhere. There is no wasted text.
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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so concretely for master and return buses. It could be slightly more complete about whether the return bus list is exhaustive, but it is sufficient for a no-parameter read tool.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly avoids inventing filters or parameters, matching the empty input schema.
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 names the exact resources returned: master fader in dB, balance, and return buses with index/name/fader/insert count. It also explicitly separates track-level data by pointing to tracks.list, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling listing tools.
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?
It gives clear routing guidance by saying track faders and sends are in tracks.list, which prevents misuse for track-level queries. It does not spell out when-not conditions beyond that, but for a zero-parameter read getter this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.