PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

by synopsys0

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

mixer_get_track

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one FL Studio mixer track's full state—level, pan, EQ, effects, and sends—to check current values before editing.

Instructions

Read one mixer track's full state: level, pan, effects, EQ, and sends.

Read-only. Returns the fader in normalized and dB form, pan, stereo
separation, mute/solo/arm, name, color, effect slots, the built-in
three-band EQ, and outgoing sends with their levels. Read it before
mixer_set_track to supply current values as expected_before guards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_index`	Yes	Zero-based mixer index. Index 0 is always Master.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`track`	Yes
`routes`	No
`warnings`	No
`builtin_eq`	No
`observed_at`	Yes
`schema_version`	No	1.0
`observation_atomic`	No
`project_dirty_flag`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv11.0.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the expected_before guard workflow that explains why reading precedes writing, plus the normalized/dB duality of the fader.

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 core purpose, then supporting detail. There is mild redundancy in listing the return fields twice (level/pan/effects/EQ/sends then the fuller enumeration), but overall tight and well-ordered.

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 annotations, a 100%-covered single param, and an output schema present, the description carries the remaining burden well by adding the expected_before workflow rationale. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already documents track_index as zero-based with index 0 being Master. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read one mixer track's full state,' then enumerates the domains covered (level, pan, effects, EQ, sends). It distinguishes itself from the sibling mixer_list_tracks by scoping to a single track.

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?

It explicitly names the sibling mixer_set_track and the condition that selects this tool: 'Read it before mixer_set_track to supply current values as expected_before guards.' This is concrete workflow routing, though it doesn't cover when-not-to-use or the list alternative.

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

Deploy Server