Skip to main content
Glama
synopsys0

PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

by synopsys0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

atlas_match_loaded

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify loaded FL Studio plug-ins against Plugin Atlas and return product candidates plus control-adapter status. Read-only; limit candidates and include weak matches.

Instructions

Identify the open project's loaded plug-ins against Plugin Atlas.

Reads the live inventory and returns, for each loaded effect and
instrument, its target, candidate Atlas products, and whether a control
adapter makes its parameters known. Read-only. only_used limits mixer
tracks; match_limit caps candidates; include_weak adds uncertain matches.
A match is not proof of ownership or writable controls; confirm controls
with plugin_list_parameters.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesInventory scope and match limits; an empty request uses conservative defaults.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pluginsNoOne record per observed loaded target, including targets without a catalog match.
warningsNoInventory and evidence limitations to retain when reporting matches; do not interpret warnings as verified control support.
observed_atYesTimestamp of the live inventory observation; a later project change can invalidate its targets.
schema_versionNo1.0
registry_digestYesSHA-256 identity of the bundled catalog used to match the live inventory.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv11.0.2

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: it explains that it reads the live inventory, that each row includes a control-adapter status, and that a match is not proof of ownership or writable controls.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then scope, then caveat and next step; every sentence carries information. It is a little dense across four wrapped sentences but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present the description need not detail return shape, yet it still sketches what comes back (target, candidate products, adapter status). Scope limits, uncertainty caveat, and the confirmation path are all covered, leaving no practical gap for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description does summarize all three knobs (only_used limits mixer tracks, match_limit caps candidates, include_weak adds uncertain matches) and frames them as bounded matching options. Its summary is slightly less precise than the schema's own notes, so it adds context rather than new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (identify the open project's loaded plug-ins against Plugin Atlas) and distinguishes itself from plugin_list_loaded by naming the Atlas-matching dimension. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context (inspect loaded inventory and see candidate Atlas products per effect/instrument) and routes to a follow-up tool: 'confirm controls with plugin_list_parameters'. It does not, however, state when to prefer atlas_search or plugin_list_loaded instead, so the exclusion side is missing.

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