Adjust noise gate and expander settings on XR18 mixer channels, including threshold, range, attack, hold, release, and mode.
Channel noise gate / expander. threshold -80..0 dB, range 3..60 dB, attack 0..120 ms, hold 0.02..2000 ms, release 5..4000 ms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| on | No | ||
| mode | No | ||
| target | Yes | ||
| hold_ms | No | ||
| range_db | No | ||
| attack_ms | No | ||
| release_ms | No | ||
| threshold_db | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any effects beyond what the parameter list implies, and the annotations only say the call is not read-only and not destructive. There is no mention of whether values are applied immediately, how the gate/expander responds, or what context (e.g., channel selection) is required.
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 compact single sentence with the resource front-loaded and every clause carrying parameter information. It is appropriately sized for a setter, though it leans telegraphic rather than explanatory.
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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete: it omits target format, mode semantics, on/off behavior, and any usage context. An agent could set numeric values but would have to infer the meaning of several fields.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds useful constraints for five numeric parameters (threshold -80..0 dB, range 3..60 dB, attack 0..120 ms, hold 0.02..2000 ms, release 5..4000 ms). It does not explain the meanings of 'target', 'on', or 'mode', including the EXP2/EXP3/EXP4/GATE/DUCK enum values.
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 names the resource ('Channel noise gate / expander') and lists the adjustable parameters, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like set_compressor or set_eq. However, it is a noun phrase rather than a verbed statement of what the tool does; the 'set' action is only implied by the tool name.
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 for when to use set_gate instead of alternatives such as set_compressor or set_hpf, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The scope is implied by the tool name and 'Channel noise gate / expander', but the description does not explicitly route the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.