Set a channel's send level to an exact dB value on the XR18 mixer, ensuring precise bus routing for monitors or effects.
Set a source send level to an absolute dB value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | ||
| bus | Yes | ||
| source | Yes | ||
| verify | No |
| 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Set' and 'absolute dB value', implying an overwrite, but does not explain effects on the mixer, idempotency, prerequisites, or the optional 'verify' behavior.
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?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
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?
Given four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema that is not shown, this tool needs more context. The description omits parameter formats, verification behavior, and operational prerequisites, leaving an agent to guess how to invoke it correctly.
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. It adds some meaning by indicating that 'db' is an absolute dB level and that the tool operates on a 'source send level', but it does not clarify what 'source' or 'bus' accept, what values are valid, or what 'verify' does.
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?
Description is specific: it names the verb 'Set', the resource 'source send level', and the value semantics 'absolute dB value'. The word 'absolute' usefully contrasts with sibling xr18_adjust_send_db, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives like xr18_adjust_send_db, xr18_get_send_db, or xr18_set_fader_db. The 'absolute' wording slightly implies a use case, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.