modularsynth-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set param

set_param

Adjust a module parameter by setting a knob or switch value; the value is clamped to the valid range and the applied value is returned.

Instructions

Turn a knob or flip a switch on a module. The value is clamped to the setting range; the value actually set is returned.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "param": "<param>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_param"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`param`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: values are clamped to the setting range and the actually-set value is returned. It does not state whether changes are undoable, what happens on invalid module/param, or whether the patch is marked modified.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the clamping/return behavior follows immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With three required parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains what 'id' and 'param' should contain, what valid parameter names look like, or what form the returned value takes beyond the fact that one is returned.

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

Parameters2/5

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 for all three parameters. It only adds meaning for 'value' (clamped to the setting range); 'id' and 'param' are left completely opaque, with no indication that 'id' identifies a module and 'param' names a specific setting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a concrete verb metaphor ('Turn a knob or flip a switch on a module') that clearly maps to setting a parameter value on a module. It does not explicitly name the sibling set_transport or clarify how it differs from other setters, but the core action is unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_transport, load_preset, or add_module. It also omits prerequisites such as whether a patch must already be loaded or whether the module id must exist.

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