set_deck_volumeSet a specific deck's fader level to control its volume, from 0.0 to 1.0, with 0.85 as the 0 dB reference.
Set a deck's fader (0.0–1.0, where 0.85 is 0 dB).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | Yes | ||
| volume | 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; it does state the action is an absolute set with a calibrated range and the unity point at 0.85. However, it does not disclose side effects such as immediate audio impact or any dependence on deck state, relying on the verb 'Set' to convey mutating behavior.
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 that earns its place: every phrase either states the operation or adds the essential calibration detail. No filler or repetition of the title.
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 low-complexity setter with only two required parameters and an output schema available, the description covers the key semantic needed to call it correctly. It could be more complete by documenting deck identifier values or prerequisites, but it is functionally sufficient for the agent to make an informed call.
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?
The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It gives essential semantics for 'volume' — the 0.0–1.0 scale and the 0 dB reference — but says nothing about acceptable formats for the 'deck' identifier, leaving that parameter under-specified.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Set'), resource ('a deck's fader'), and the parameter domain (0.0–1.0 volume) in one short sentence. The possessive 'deck's' differentiates it from the sibling 'crossfade' tool, which targets the master crossfader rather than a deck's own volume.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of related deck tools such as crossfade, eq_kill, or load_to_deck, and no mention of prerequisites such as a deck needing to be loaded. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and the word 'fader'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.