modularsynth-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Load preset

load_preset

Destructive

Replace the current rack with a ready-made preset by name to switch modular synth patches, with undo support for reverting changes.

Instructions

Replace the rack with a ready-made preset, by name (see list_presets). The user can undo it.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "load_preset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it scopes the destruction to the entire rack and discloses that the operation is undoable. It doesn't mention what happens to the previously loaded, unsaved patch, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence plus a short clause; the destructive action and its scope are front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter tool with full annotation coverage, the description covers what it does, where the argument comes from, and reversibility. Only the fate of the current unsaved patch is left unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% so the description must carry the load, and it does specify that 'name' is a preset identifier obtained via list_presets rather than an arbitrary string. It doesn't describe naming format or case sensitivity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the rack with a ready-made preset') and names the lookup tool, which cleanly separates it from siblings like new_patch (empty patch) or recall_scene.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'by name (see list_presets)' tells the agent where the required argument comes from, and 'The user can undo it' signals the recovery path. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over new_patch or recall_scene, so no explicit exclusions.

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