OSC MCP Server

osc_get_fader

Retrieve the current fader level for a specified channel on digital mixers like Behringer X32 or Midas M32 to monitor audio levels and adjust mix settings.

Instructions

Get the current fader level for a channel

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "osc_get_fader"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`channel`	Yes	Channel number (1-32)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention any side effects, error conditions, permissions required, or what the return value looks like (e.g., numeric level, format). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., fader level format, units) or address behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to be fully usable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'channel' parameter fully documented (type, range, description). The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without providing extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current fader level for a channel'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'osc_get_aux_fader' or 'osc_get_bus_fader', which also retrieve fader levels for different mixer components.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for getting fader levels (e.g., 'osc_get_aux_fader', 'osc_get_bus_fader', 'osc_get_main_fader'), there's no indication that this tool is specifically for channel faders rather than aux, bus, or main faders.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server