Set up multiple input channels from a stage plot in one undo step, applying names, colors, HPF, gain, phantom, USB source, LR assign, fader, and pan.
Set up many input channels from an input list / stage plot in one go (one undo step): names, colours, HPF, preamp gain, phantom, USB source, LR assign, fader, pan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| channels | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful 'one undo step' behavior, but does not disclose confirmation requirements for phantom power or other side effects. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One sentence with no filler, front-loads the core action, but the parameter list makes it dense. Still readable and efficient.
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 complex bulk-update tool, the description misses critical guidance about the structure of the 'channels' array, the purpose of 'confirm', and error/confirmation behavior. The schema descriptions carry most of the semantic load, so the description alone is not fully 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates several field names (name, color, HPF, gain, phantom, USB, LR, fader, pan), but omits the required 'channel' and the 'confirm' flag, and provides no formats or constraints. Only partial compensation.
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 verb and resource: 'Set up many input channels' in one batch operation, lists the exact attributes (names, colours, HPF, etc.), and clearly distinguishes from the single-channel set_* siblings by emphasizing 'many' and 'in one go'.
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?
Implies when to use (bulk channel setup from an input list or stage plot) and contrasts with the individual set_* tools by highlighting the batch aspect. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of fully explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.