Save the complete XR18 mixer state—channels, buses, FX, routing, and preamps—to a named preset file. Use descriptive names like 'song-3' to overwrite existing presets.
Save the whole board (all channel, bus, FX, routing and preamp settings) to presets/.json. Use names like 'song-3' or 'band-X-2026-09'. Overwrites a preset with the same name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds value by explicitly disclosing the overwrite behavior and the file path format, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations; overwriting is expected and not a hidden destructive side effect.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by naming conventions and overwrite behavior. It is concise with no filler, earning a high score for efficiency.
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 is simple (2 parameters, no output schema) and the description covers the primary function, naming, and overwrite. However, it does not mention what happens on success/failure (e.g., return values, errors) or how the 'notes' field is used. For a save operation, this is a minor gap but still leaves some uncertainty for an agent.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter with examples and clarifies it determines the file name. However, the 'notes' parameter is not explained at all; its purpose and how it is stored remain unclear. This is a significant gap given the schema provides no descriptions.
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 saves the entire board to a preset file, naming the resource (board) and specific components. It also mentions overwriting. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like load_preset or snapshot_save, though the action is clear.
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 implies when to use the tool (to save a preset) and provides naming examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_presets or load_preset, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It gives some usage context with naming conventions but lacks explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.