X32/M32 MCP Server

Bus Mute Control

bus_mute

Idempotent

Mute or unmute a specific mix bus (1-16) on the X32/M32 mixer, controlling its audio output state.

Instructions

Mute or unmute a specific mix bus on the X32/M32 mixer. This controls the bus on/off state.

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": {
      "bus": "<bus>",
      "muted": "<muted>"
    },
    "name": "bus_mute"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bus`	Yes	Mix bus number from 1 to 16
`muted`	Yes	True to mute the bus, false to unmute

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond these, such as side effects on audio output or permission requirements. The second sentence ('This controls the bus on/off state') essentially restates the schema parameter descriptions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first and schema, making it slightly less efficient than a purely minimal statement.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete. It doesn't elaborate on return values (not relevant) or edge cases, but none are needed given the simple boolean nature of the operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (bus range 1-16, muted boolean), so the description adds little semantic value. The phrase 'on/off state' mirrors the 'muted' parameter description, contributing no new meaning.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Mute or unmute') and the specific resource ('a specific mix bus on the X32/M32 mixer'). This distinguishes it from siblings like channel_mute or main_mute, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by stating the tool mutes/unmutes a bus, which is enough for a simple, well-named tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., bus_set_volume for level control), leaving some guidance to the agent's inference.

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