Set the DAW audition mode for a podcast session to mix, FX, or raw, enabling preview of tracks with the intended processing.
Set DAW audition mode: mix | fx | raw.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "mode"
-]New value: +[
+ "mode"
+]v0.1.0Does 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 does not say whether the mode change is persistent, affects playback immediately, is undoable, or requires an active session; only the setting's existence is conveyed.
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 action, target, and allowed values; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting needed context, but structurally efficient.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an unannotated mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage the description leaves too much unsaid: the meaning of project_path and the effect of changing mode are both missing.
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% and no enum is declared, so the description's inline list 'mix | fx | raw' is the only definition of valid mode values — genuinely valuable. However, project_path is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.
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 ('Set') plus resource ('DAW audition mode') and enumerates the three valid modes, so the agent knows exactly what changes. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent session-state setters like set_session_playing_tool or set_session_selection_tool, but the resource is distinct enough to be identifiable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to switch audition mode, what each mode is for, or when an agent should prefer this over other session controls. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.