Set comb filter delay for macro, meso, or micro synthesis levels by specifying the delay amount, tuning spatial sonic textures via OSC.
Set comb filter delay. Macro: 10-3000, Meso: 10-1000, Micro: 10-300.
Args: params: level and value.
Returns: JSON confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description is free to add value — and it does, spelling out the enforced value ceilings per level and confirming a JSON confirmation is returned. It still doesn't say what happens if the comb filter is switched off or whether out-of-range values are clamped or rejected.
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?
Front-loaded and short, which is good, but 'Args: params: level and value' restates the schema and 'Returns: JSON confirmation' restates the output schema, so two of the four lines earn little. Sizing is fine; content economy is mediocre.
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 single-parameter setter with annotations and an output schema, the essentials are present, but the description omits the dependency on comb_switch and mod_range that an agent would need to sequence this call correctly among its many siblings.
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 defines both nested fields, but reported description coverage is 0% at the top level, so the description carries the burden. It names 'level and value' and repeats the ranges that the schema already declares, adding no format or clamping semantics beyond that.
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 and resource ('Set comb filter delay') and gives the valid numeric ranges per level, so an agent can tell it apart from comb_switch or set_comb_mod_range. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, which keeps it from a 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite the cluster of adjacent comb tools (comb_switch, set_comb_mod_range). The per-level ranges are the only hint that level selection matters, but the tool never says when to pick macro vs micro or when the comb must already be enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.