Add a channel for a plugin instrument or loaded sample, route it to a mixer track, and return the new channel ID.
Add a channel played by instrument plugin (a name from list_plugins, e.g. "Lemon Trio"), or a sampler
with sample (an audio file path) loaded. mixer_track: a mixer track id to route it to. Returns its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| plugin | No | ||
| sample | No | ||
| mixer_track | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a channel, supports plugin or sampler modes, routes to a mixer track, and returns an id, but it does not clarify side effects, whether plugin and sample are mutually exclusive, or error behavior.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with no filler. Purpose and key parameter meanings are front-loaded, and the return value is included efficiently.
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 mutation-style creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the main operating modes and return value. It still leaves gaps around the name parameter, parameter exclusivity, and side-effect details.
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. It adds meaning for plugin, sample, and mixer_track, but the name parameter is not described at all, and optionality or mutual exclusivity among plugin/sample is left implicit.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it adds a channel. It also clarifies the two creation modes, plugin-backed or sampler-backed, which separates it from unrelated siblings like delete_channel or set_channel, though it does not explicitly name the alternative 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?
The description gives useful usage context: plugin names come from list_plugins, samples are audio file paths, and mixer_track routes the channel. However, it does not explicitly say when to use add_channel versus set_channel, delete_channel, or load_sample, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.