Read the parametric equalizer’s gains, mode, and active bands for both channels to inspect the current EQ configuration and verify settings.
Read the parametric equalizer: gains, mode and every active band for both channels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| instance | No | ||
| pipeline | No | output |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned content (gains, mode, active bands, both channels), which is real added value since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether reading is fully non-mutating.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource and returned fields are stated up front. It is efficient and appropriately sized for a simple getter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially fills the gap by listing what is returned. However, the two input parameters remain completely undocumented and no safety/context information is given, leaving the definition only partly adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters (instance, pipeline) is explained in the description. The phrase 'both channels' gestures at channel/pipeline semantics but never maps it to the input/output enum, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Read) and resource (parametric equalizer) plus the data returned, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling writers set_equalizer_band and apply_parametric_eq. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of sibling tools like get_status or apply_parametric_eq. The agent can infer that a getter reads current state, but the description never states the conditions for calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.