See the entire XR18 mixer: inputs, preamp gains, phantom power, HPF, faders, mutes, LR assign, active sends, buses, FX returns, main LR, and DCAs. Start here to get oriented.
Whole-board summary: every input with source, preamp gain/phantom, HPF, fader, mute, LR assign and active sends; buses, FX sends and returns, main LR and DCAs. Start here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is a summary of various elements, which is more about content than behavior. It doesn't mention any side effects, auth requirements, or performance implications, but given the read-only nature, the bar is lower and the description satisfies the basic expectation.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Whole-board summary') and then lists the included elements. It ends with the actionable instruction 'Start here', which is both concise and purposeful with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the agent can expect in terms of content. It lists all major board areas but doesn't describe the response format or any limitations, which is acceptable for a straightforward summary tool with annotations already providing the safety context.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none.
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 tool's purpose as a 'Whole-board summary' and enumerates the specific items covered (inputs, buses, FX, main LR, DCAs). This is a precise verb-resource statement that distinguishes it from narrower tools like channel_detail or find_channels.
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 phrase 'Start here' gives explicit guidance that this is the recommended first tool to invoke, implying it provides an overview before diving into specifics. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but it does establish a clear entry-point usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.