Lists parameter keys, value ranges, and option names for a chosen amplifier section, including every MOD/FX effect detail parameter, so agents can inspect available tone controls before setting them.
List the keys of one section with their ranges and option names (for MOD/FX this includes every effect type's detail parameters).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | Yes |
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. 'List' strongly implies a safe read operation, and it adds useful scope detail about MOD/FX detail parameters, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side-effect absence.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds useful scope without bloating the definition.
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 simple one-parameter listing tool, it explains what the output will contain, which is helpful since no output schema exists. However, it lacks usage routing and explicit read-only behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 should compensate for the single `section` parameter. It only says 'one section' and does not explain the enum values or clarify that exactly one section must be supplied; the parameter information remains largely reliant on the schema enum.
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 ('List the keys of one section') and clarifies the returned content (ranges and option names, including MOD/FX detail parameters). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like katana_get and katana_set, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.
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?
It implies discovery usage by explaining what is listed, but never says when to call this instead of katana_get or katana_set. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.