Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flstudio-mcp

flstudio-mcp

by rosasynthesiz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get plugin parameters

fl_plugin_get_params
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves all named parameters of a plugin in a specified track and effect slot, returning index, name, normalized value, and display string.

Instructions

Every named parameter of the plugin in this slot: index, name, normalised value (0..1) and FL's display string (e.g. '3.6dB', '500Hz'). Returns {"total", "params":[{"i","name","v","s"}, ...]}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track": "<track>",
      "slot": "<slot>"
    },
    "name": "fl_plugin_get_params"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trackYes
slotYesEffect slot index 0-9.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. Description supplements by detailing output structure (object with 'total' and 'params' array). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first explains what is returned, second specifies the exact JSON structure. No unnecessary words, information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema provided externally but described in text), the description covers essential return structure and parameter role. Could mention potential error conditions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers two parameters (track, slot) with only slot having a description. Description does not add meaning beyond schema, missing details like track meaning or param constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it retrieves plugin parameters with specific fields (index, name, normalized value, display string). Distinguishes from siblings like fl_plugin_set_param and fl_plugin_list by focusing on parameter querying.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage for reading plugin parameters but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. No mention of when to avoid or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools