Mute or unmute a specific audio clip by track and clip index. Set the muted boolean to true to mute or false to unmute.
Mute or unmute a specific audio clip
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| muted | Yes | True to mute, false to unmute | |
| clipIndex | Yes | Clip index | |
| trackIndex | Yes | Audio track index |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the change is reversible (undoable), whether it requires the clip to be selected or the sequence active, or what state the clip ends in beyond the boolean — thin for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front and zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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?
The tool is simple (3 required scalar params, no output schema, no nesting), and the schema fully documents the inputs. Still, with no annotations the description could have added a note on scope or reversibility; as written it is adequate but minimal.
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%: all three parameters (trackIndex, clipIndex, muted) are documented in the schema itself, and 'muted' already explains true=mute/false=unmute. The description adds no syntax, addressing-convention, or ordering detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb pair (mute/unmute) and a specific resource (an audio clip), so an agent can distinguish it from track-level muting like set_track_muted. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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 name and the boolean parameter — use it when you need to silence a single clip rather than a whole track. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid track/clip indices), and no routing to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.