PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compose_export_midi

Destructive

Export note sequences to a Type-1 MIDI file for FL Studio. Verify tracks and events; set overwrite=true to replace an existing file without altering the FL project.

Instructions

Write note sequences to a standard Type-1 MIDI file and verify it.

Writes a local file only; the FL project is unchanged. Re-opens and parses
the file to verify its digest, tracks, and events. Refuses to replace an
existing file unless overwrite=true. The user can drag the file into FL;
use piano_roll_write_notes to put notes in the open project instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ppq`	No	Ticks per quarter note.
`path`	Yes	Absolute .mid or .midi output path whose folder already exists.
`tracks`	Yes	One entry per MIDI track: name, MIDI channel, and notes in beats.
`numerator`	No	Time-signature numerator.
`overwrite`	No	Allow atomic replacement of an existing file.
`tempo_bpm`	No	Tempo recorded in the sequence, in BPM.
`denominator`	No	Time-signature denominator.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ppq`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`sha256`	Yes
`verified`	Yes
`tempo_bpm`	Yes
`byte_count`	Yes
`note_count`	Yes
`exported_at`	Yes
`midi_format`	No
`track_count`	Yes
`schema_version`	No	1.0
`header_verified`	Yes
`readback_sha256`	Yes
`atomic_replace_used`	No
`musical_track_count`	Yes
`note_events_verified`	Yes
`overwritten_existing_file`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv11.0.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the write is local-file-only with the FL project unchanged, the file is re-opened and parsed to verify digest/tracks/events, and replacement of an existing file is refused unless overwrite=true. That discloses what is destroyed and under what condition, consistent with the annotations.

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?

Three tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the side-effect scope, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information; none 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's side effects, verification behavior, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter (path, tracks, ppq, tempo_bpm, numerator/denominator, overwrite) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource+format: 'Write note sequences to a standard Type-1 MIDI file and verify it.' It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling piano_roll_write_notes, so an agent can distinguish this from the in-project note-writing tool without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use routing: 'use piano_roll_write_notes to put notes in the open project instead,' plus the drag-into-FL workflow and the overwrite gating condition. Both the alternative and the selecting condition are named.

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

Deploy Server