Modify a mixer track's volume, pan, stereo, mute state, name, color, and effects by track ID.
Change mixer track track (an id): volume 0..1 (0.8 = unity), pan and stereo -1..1, enabled (False mutes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| track | Yes | ||
| stereo | No | ||
| volume | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| effects_enabled | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 reveals that False mutes the track, but never states that unspecified (null-defaulted) parameters are left unchanged, what happens if `track` does not exist, or whether changes require the project to be in a particular state — all critical for an 8-param 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 dense sentence with the target identifier front-loaded and ranges attached inline; almost nothing is wasted. It borders on cryptic shorthand, but every clause carries information.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves too much open: three params undocumented, partial-update behavior unstated, and no failure/error expectations. The range hints help but do not make the definition self-sufficient.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning for volume (0..1, 0.8 = unity), pan/stereo (-1..1) and enabled (False mutes). However, `name`, `color` and `effects_enabled` — three of eight params — get no explanation anywhere, and the update-vs-replace semantics of null defaults remain unclear.
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 ('Change mixer track') and pins the target with `track` (an id), which distinguishes it from add_mixer_track, route_mixer and set_eq by implication. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as route_mixer or set_eq for related operations. The agent must infer that this is the general-purpose property setter for an existing track.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.