voice_helpRetrieve a voice module's source, velocity behavior, functions, and parameters to configure or troubleshoot text-driven DAW projects.
Everything about one voice module: where it comes from, what velocity does, its functions and parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | grand_piano | |
| project | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the topical coverage (origin, velocity, functions, parameters), but says nothing about whether it is read-only or what form the help takes. With an output schema present, return-shape disclosure is not required, keeping this at an adequate-but-thin 3.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter guidance noted elsewhere.
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 output schema covers return values, so that dimension is satisfied. However, with zero annotations and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves the project parameter and the help/info vs. sibling-help distinction unresolved, so it is only minimally complete.
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?
Two parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no enum or format hints. The phrase 'one voice module' weakly implies the name parameter, but the project parameter is entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 resource (one voice module) and enumerates the topical scope (origin, velocity, functions, parameters), making it clear this is a documentation/help tool for voice modules. However, it never differentiates itself from closely-named siblings like instrument_help, fx_help, or voices_list, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite the presence of instrument_help, fx_help, and voices_list as obvious competing choices. An agent cannot tell from the text when to reach for this tool versus those siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.