X32/M32 MCP Server

Set Parameter (Low-Level)

set_parameter

Destructive

Sets X32/M32 mixer parameters using raw OSC address patterns for precise low-level control, ideal for automation or parameters not exposed by higher-level tools.

Instructions

ADVANCED/LOW-LEVEL TOOL: Controls X32/M32 mixer parameters by setting specific values via raw OSC address patterns. Consider using semantic tools (channel_*, bus_*, etc.) for common operations. Use this tool for parameters not covered by semantic tools or for advanced automation.

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": {
      "address": "<address>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "set_parameter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes	Value to set - typically 0.0-1.0 for faders, 0/1 for mutes, or specific values for other parameters
`address`	Yes	OSC address pattern for the parameter to control (e.g., "/ch/01/mix/fader" for channel 1 fader, "/main/st/mix/fader" for main stereo fader)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.0Aug 9, 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 readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds valuable context by labeling the tool as 'ADVANCED/LOW-LEVEL' and emphasizing 'raw OSC address patterns' and 'advanced automation,' which signals it bypasses semantic safeguards. No contradicting or additional side-effect information is given, but this is sufficient.

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 three focused sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second points to semantic tools, and the third defines when to use this tool. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With a 2-parameter schema (fully described), annotations covering safety/destructiveness, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a low-level setter. It clearly explains the tool's place among siblings and its intended use case. It does not cover error handling or invalid address consequences, but these are not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (address and value). The description itself does not add parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function: controlling X32/M32 mixer parameters via raw OSC address patterns. It also distinguishes itself from semantic sibling tools by positioning itself as low-level and for parameters not covered by semantic tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to prefer alternatives: 'Consider using semantic tools (channel_*, bus_*, etc.) for common operations. Use this tool for parameters not covered by semantic tools or for advanced automation.' This provides clear usage guidance and names alternative tools.

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