Get the send level in dB from a source to a specified bus on an XR18 mixer. Accepts bus numbers, canonical IDs, or configured monitor/FX send names.
Read a source send level in dB.
bus accepts 1-6, a canonical identifier such as bus/5 or fxsend/2, or a configured monitor/FX send name such as Vocal Monitor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bus | Yes | ||
| 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?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses a read-only operation and gives meaningful detail about accepted bus reference forms. It does not discuss error behavior, but for a simple read tool with an output schema, the core behavior is adequately transparent.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded and the bus value-space detail earns its place. This is appropriately concise.
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 output schema covers return values, but the description is incomplete for actually invoking the tool: one of two required parameters, 'source', has no documented semantics. The bus parameter is well covered, but a missing half of the required input surface makes the definition insufficiently complete.
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 is the only documentation for parameters. It thoroughly explains 'bus' but leaves 'source' completely unspecified beyond the schema's anyOf integer/string. An agent cannot know what values to pass for the required 'source' parameter.
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: 'Read a source send level in dB.' The read operation and the send-level resource clearly distinguish it from the set/adjust siblings and from the fader-level getter, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does.
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 verb 'Read' implies when to use the tool, but the description does not explicitly say to prefer this over xr18_set_send_db or xr18_adjust_send_db for writes. The bus-format guidance is about how to call the tool, not when to select it versus alternatives, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.