X32/M32 MCP Server

Get FX State

fx_get_state

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the current effect type and parameter values for any effects rack (1-8) on the X32/M32 mixer.

Instructions

Get the current state of a specific effects rack on the X32/M32 mixer. Returns the effect type and parameter values.

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": {
      "fx": "<fx>"
    },
    "name": "fx_get_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fx`	Yes	Effects rack number from 1 to 8

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. It adds the return content and 'current state' context, but does not provide deeper behavioral details (e.g., error handling, exact parameter format). This is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it explains the scope (specific effects rack on X32/M32), what is returned (effect type and parameter values), and annotations cover safety. No output schema is provided, but the return description is sufficient for this use case.

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 already fully describes the sole parameter 'fx' (1 to 8), and the description only refers to it generically as 'specific effects rack'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little to parameter understanding, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get the current state') and the resource ('specific effects rack on the X32/M32 mixer'), and specifies what is returned ('effect type and parameter values'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fx_set_parameter and fx_bypass.

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?

The description clearly implies usage for inspecting the current state of an FX rack, and the read-only nature is reinforced by annotations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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