Retrieve a channel's main mix fader level in dB. Query by channel number or name to get the current fader value, ensuring accurate gain staging and mix adjustments.
Read a channel's main mix fader level in dB.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's 'Read' does correctly signal a non-mutating operation, which is the primary behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose error behavior, return value semantics, or any constraints on 'source' beyond the schema.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter read tool.
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?
The description is too sparse for a tool with an ambiguous 'source' parameter and no annotations. It does not clarify channel referencing, usage context, or how it relates to sibling read/write tools, so an agent would need additional inference or external knowledge to call it reliably.
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 must compensate for the undefined 'source' parameter, but it never mentions 'source' or explains how to identify the channel (integer vs. string). This leaves the only parameter effectively undocumented.
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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('a channel's main mix fader level in dB'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like xr18_get_send_db ('main mix' vs. send) and xr18_set_fader_db/xr18_adjust_fader_db ('Read' vs. write operations).
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?
The description does not explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. While the read/write contrast with set/adjust tools is implied, there is no explicit guidance about using xr18_get_send_db for sends or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.