Configures parametric EQ parameters for XR18 mixer channels, buses, auxes, and FX returns, including gain, frequency, Q, type, and on/off.
Parametric EQ. Channels/aux/FX returns have bands 1-4, buses and LR 1-6. Gain -15..+15 dB, freq 20..20000 Hz, Q 0.3..10. on=true/false (without band) switches the whole EQ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| on | No | ||
| band | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| freq_hz | No | ||
| gain_db | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (only readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries most of the burden. It does add useful behavioral detail: band availability by target type, allowed numeric ranges, and that 'on' without a band switches the whole EQ. However, it does not mention confirm behavior, whether changes are applied immediately or staged, or what happens with invalid combinations.
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 three short sentences with no filler, and the most identifying information ('Parametric EQ') is front-loaded. Every sentence adds a meaningful constraint or behavior, though the omissions prevent a higher score.
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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, minimal annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It explains several numeric bounds but omits essential semantics for target addressing, type choices, and the confirm parameter, making it insufficient for correct invocation in all cases.
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 clearly documents ranges for gain_db, freq_hz, and q, explains band limits per target type, and clarifies the on parameter. But it leaves target format, the type enum values, and confirm semantics undocumented, which are significant gaps.
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 begins with 'Parametric EQ', clearly identifying the resource and function, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_gate and set_compressor by naming the effect type. The action verb is not explicit, but the tool name set_eq plus the parameter details make the purpose 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 is given about when to use this tool versus related tools such as set_hpf or set_compressor. The description provides constraint context (band counts per target type and value ranges) but not conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help select this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.