MCP Audio Studio

Update effect

update_effect

Modify any effect slot in your audio project by enabling, bypassing, renaming, adjusting mix, or updating parameters.

Instructions

Enable, bypass, rename, mix, or change parameters on an effect slot.

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": {
      "trackId": "<trackId>",
      "effectId": "<effectId>"
    },
    "name": "update_effect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mix`	No
`name`	No
`enabled`	No
`trackId`	Yes
`effectId`	Yes
`parameters`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish the safety profile (mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds that it can change specific fields, but it does not disclose return value, merge semantics for the parameters object, or any prerequisites. It neither contradicts nor substantially extends the annotation information.

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?

The description is a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action verbs and clearly states the target resource. No filler or redundant information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With six parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits critical behavioral details such as whether parameters merges or replaces existing values, what the response format is, and whether partial updates are permitted. The operation is a mutation, so an agent would need this information to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With zero schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It maps enabled/name/mix/parameters to the respective actions, but leaves 'bypass' ambiguous—it does not clarify whether bypass is a boolean on enabled or a key in parameters. The required IDs are self-explanatory from their names, so meaning is partially compensated.

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 clearly identifies the tool as modifying an existing effect slot, listing specific operations (enable, bypass, rename, mix, change parameters). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect (creation) and remove_effect (deletion).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage on an existing effect slot but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as set_equalizer or update_plugin. It fails to name when-not or alternatives, leaving it to the agent to infer from sibling tool names.

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