Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flstudio-mcp

flstudio-mcp

by rosasynthesiz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Reference match (level/balance)

fl_reference_match
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare your mix's level and tonal balance to a reference track. Analyzes overall level and spectral bands, then suggests adjustments for a better match.

Instructions

Compare your mix's LEVEL + rough tonal BALANCE to a reference track. READ-ONLY. Analyzes the reference FILE (overall level + low/mid/high spectral-band shares) and your mix (Master peak for level + a ROUGH name-based band estimate). HONEST: a level/balance compare, NOT a spectral match -- FL doesn't expose its output audio, so the your-mix balance is estimated from track names + peaks. Suggests adjustments; applies nothing.

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": {
      "reference_audio_path": "<reference_audio_path>"
    },
    "name": "fl_reference_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reference_audio_pathYesPath to a reference WAV/MP3 to compare against.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds crucial honesty: the tool does NOT perform a spectral match, it's a rough estimate based on track names and peaks, and it suggests adjustments without applying them. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is concise but packed with necessary information. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly improved (e.g., bullet points). Well within acceptable length.

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers what the tool does, its limitations, and the nature of its output. It could mention the output schema briefly, but the existing text is sufficient for an informed decision.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The description adds context about what the reference file is used for (analyze overall level and spectral-band shares), but this is more behavioral than parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it compares mix level and rough tonal balance to a reference track. Distinguishes itself from potential siblings like fl_analyze_audio or fl_diagnose_mix by specifying its scope (level/balance vs spectral match).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly mentions it's READ-ONLY and notes this is not a spectral match. Limitations are spelled out, helping decide when to use or trust the tool. Could explicitly name alternative tools for spectral matching, but the guidance is clear.

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