Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
easyeffects-mcp

easyeffects-mcp

by kaushikgunasekaren
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

window

Show or hide the Easy Effects interface on Linux, letting you control visibility of its main app UI when needed.

Instructions

Show or hide the Easy Effects window.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey that this toggles UI visibility rather than an audio setting, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether the state persists, whether it requires a GUI session, or whether hiding affects playback.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter UI toggle with an output schema available for return values, the description is largely sufficient. It omits edge-case behavior (already visible/hidden) and any environment prerequisites, but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the single parameter has an enum of 'show'/'hide' that is self-documenting, and the description restates those two operations. It adds no new detail (defaults, idempotency when already shown/hidden) beyond the enum.

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?

States specific verbs (show/hide) and a concrete resource (the Easy Effects window), which clearly separates it from the audio-processing siblings like set_equalizer_band or load_preset. The tool name 'window' alone would be ambiguous, but the description resolves it. No explicit sibling routing, so not a 5.

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 show versus hide, or in what workflow (e.g., to surface the GUI for the user) this should be invoked. The action enum implies the two modes but the description supplies no context for choosing between them.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools