MCP Audio Studio

Update plugin

update_plugin

Adjust a plugin slot's configuration on a track: enable or bypass, rename, change parameters, or store plugin state.

Instructions

Enable, bypass, rename, change parameters, or store opaque plugin state for a plugin 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>",
      "pluginId": "<pluginId>"
    },
    "name": "update_plugin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`state`	No
`enabled`	No
`trackId`	Yes
`pluginId`	Yes
`parameters`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide only negative hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context like 'opaque plugin state' and the various operations, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing parameters are overwritten or whether a plugin must already exist. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently lists all main operations with no filler words. The description is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no positive annotations, the description provides a good overview but omits important operational details such as required identification (trackId/pluginId), update semantics, and expected response. It is better than a bare definition but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map 'rename' to name, 'change parameters' to parameters, 'store opaque plugin state' to state, and 'enable/bypass' to enabled. However, it does not explain trackId/pluginId or clarify the relationship between 'bypass' and the boolean enabled, leaving some parameters without meaningful context.

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 enumerates specific actions ('Enable, bypass, rename, change parameters, or store opaque plugin state') on a defined resource ('a plugin slot'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_plugin (added) and update_effect (effects).

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 for updating an existing plugin slot, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_plugin or remove_plugin. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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