kill_all_fxReset all PERF-rack macros to zero on a selected deck, clearing performance FX for a fresh start. Handles renamed macros, ensuring full cleanup.
Zero all PERF-rack macros on a deck (clean slate). Works with renamed macros.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does state the core effect (zero all macros) and an important compatibility trait (renamed macros). It does not mention reversibility, side effects, or whether this is a destructive reset, so transparency is acceptable but not rich.
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?
The entire description is two short sentences with no filler; the primary action and outcome are front-loaded, and 'Works with renamed macros' earns its place as a compatibility caveat.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description gives enough to infer the general operation, but the missing deck-parameter semantics and lack of explicit usage direction leave gaps. It is a minimum-viable description rather than a fully self-sufficient one.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'deck' parameter beyond restating that the operation happens on a deck. An agent still needs to know whether deck is a name, index, or ID and what values are valid.
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?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Zero all PERF-rack macros on a deck') and the intended clean-slate outcome, and 'all' distinguishes it from singular macro tools like set_fx_macro. It relies on domain terms like PERF-rack, but in context this is specific rather than vague.
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?
The description implies usage through 'clean slate' and 'Works with renamed macros', suggesting this is the tool to reset every macro even when macros have been renamed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance remains implied rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.