Adds a ReaLimit limiter to the master track and sets its threshold and release rate to control peak levels during mastering.
Add ReaLimit to the master track and set its threshold and release. threshold_db: -60 to +12 dB. release_db_per_sec: how fast gain reduction recovers, in dB per second as ReaLimit displays it (about 6 and up; higher recovers faster; default 15).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threshold_db | No | ||
| release_db_per_sec | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Input schema / properties / release_db_per_secAdded value: +{
+ "default": 15,
+ "title": "Release Db Per Sec",
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / release_msRemoved value: -{
- "default": 50,
- "title": "Release Ms",
- "type": "number"
-}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it leaves key questions open: whether an existing limiter is replaced or a second instance added, whether prior settings are lost, and whether the operation is reversible. It does disclose the parameter defaults and the direction of the release control, which is genuinely useful context.
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?
Front-loaded with the action, then two tight parameter sentences; no filler. Formatting as a single paragraph makes the per-parameter guidance slightly harder to scan than a list would be, but 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?
For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, parameter documentation is solid but the effect on project state is under-specified – an agent does not learn whether this stacks FX or replaces them, or what it gets back. Adequate, but with a clear behavioral 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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: threshold_db gets an explicit -60 to +12 dB range, and release_db_per_sec is explained as dB-per-second recovery with a typical floor of ~6, direction (higher = faster) and default 15. Only the threshold default (-0.5) is left to the 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?
States a specific verb and resource – adds the ReaLimit plugin to the master track and configures two of its parameters. An agent can tell it is a convenience wrapper around master-bus limiting. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_master_fx or apply_mastering_chain, which could also place a limiter.
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 only implied: the tool is for putting a limiter on the master bus, which fits mastering/loudness workflows. There is no explicit when-to-use versus add_master_fx, apply_mastering_chain, or normalize_project, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.