set_device_parameterSet raw device parameters directly on a deck's track by name and value, providing an escape hatch for controls not covered by macros.
Set any raw device parameter by name on a deck's track (escape hatch when a macro doesn't cover it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| device_index | Yes | ||
| parameter_name | 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 full burden. It discloses that this is a low-level, unrestricted operation ('any raw device parameter') and frames it as an escape hatch, implying directness and potential risk. However, it does not explain side effects, validation, persistence, error behavior, or whether changes are reversible.
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 description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and context, with a useful parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.
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?
The tool has four required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, yet the description does not explain how to discover valid parameter names, how device_index relates to decks/tracks, or what value ranges are acceptable. An agent would need external knowledge or sibling tools like get_device_parameters to call this correctly.
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 the description does not explain the meaning of deck, device_index, value, or how parameter_name should be formatted. The phrase 'by name' gives minimal context for parameter_name, but the other three parameters remain semantically underspecified.
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 states the action ('Set'), the resource ('raw device parameter by name on a deck's track'), and its role as an escape hatch. It distinguishes itself from macro-based sibling tools by emphasizing direct raw parameter access.
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 explicitly says to use this tool when a macro doesn't cover a parameter, which gives a clear condition for selecting it over macro-oriented siblings like set_fx_macro. It does not mention alternatives for reading parameters or other non-macro cases, but the core guidance is solid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.