MCP Audio Studio

Set mixer channel

set_mixer

Set volume, panning, mute, solo, and send levels for any track or the master channel to control your mix.

Instructions

Set volume, panning, mute, solo, and send levels for a track or the master channel.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "set_mixer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pan`	No
`mute`	No
`solo`	No
`sendA`	No
`sendB`	No
`target`	Yes	A track ID or the literal 'master'.
`volume`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It states mutation ('set') but does not disclose whether unspecified parameters are preserved, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on invalid targets. This is a significant gap for a write operation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, enumerates properties efficiently, and contains no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of purpose but lacks behavioral details such as idempotency, handling of unspecified parameters, and error behavior. It is minimally adequate but not complete for an agent to invoke correctly without further assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 14% (target only). The description lists parameter names but adds little semantic meaning beyond them: e.g., 'pan' range is not explained, and 'send levels' gives only a loose hint about sendA/B. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('mixer channel') with enumerated properties (volume, panning, mute, solo, send levels) and target scope (track or master). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_equalizer or update_track.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies use for adjusting mixer parameters and mentions the target scope (track or master), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or note exclusions. Context is clear, though no explicit when-not guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.