Set the dry/wet balance of PolyNodes synthesis over OSC. Adjust from 0.0 for the dry original signal to 1.0 for fully wet synthesis.
Set the dry/wet balance (0.0=dry original, 1.0=wet synthesis).
Args: params: value 0.0-1.0.
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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dry/wet axis semantics and that the call returns a JSON confirmation, which is modest but real added context beyond the structured fields.
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 one-line purpose followed by brief Args/Returns blocks; every line is relevant. The 'Returns: JSON confirmation' line is largely redundant given an output schema exists, a minor waste.
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 an output schema and annotations, the description supplies purpose, range, and endpoint meaning. Only a note on which signal chain/node it affects would add more, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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 reported at 0% (the single param is behind a $ref), so the description must compensate; it does so by restating the 0.0-1.0 range and explaining what each endpoint means ('dry original' / 'wet synthesis'). That is the key semantic the agent needs, though it adds little on units beyond the schema's own bounds.
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 ('Set') and resource ('dry/wet balance') with the value endpoints spelled out, so it is clearly distinct from neighbors like set_gain, resonator_balance, or set_filter_freq. It does not explicitly name a sibling it could be confused with, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 versus the many other mix/balance-style setters (set_gain, resonator_balance, cuboid_return_level). Usage is only implied by the tool name; there are no prerequisites or exclusions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.