Recommend plugin choices or stock alternatives by query, problems, or techniques. Get static output without modifying FL Studio session.
Rank static plug-in choices or stock alternatives without changing FL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema_version | No | 1.0 | |
| recommendations | No | ||
| registry_digest | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v10.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'without changing FL', which reinforces the read-only nature but does not introduce new behavioral details like response format or rate limits. It adds minimal value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core function and a key constraint. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complex schema (9 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'static plug-in choices' or 'stock alternatives' mean, nor does it hint at the required inputs. An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand how to call this tool, making the description inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. With 9 parameters in the nested request object, the description fails to explain their meanings or usage. The schema itself has a description, but that is not part of the tool description, so the agent gets no parameter guidance from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool ranks static plug-in choices or stock alternatives, using a specific verb ('Rank') and resource, and notes it does not change FL. This distinguishes it from siblings like plugins_atlas_search (searching) and plugins_atlas_get_product (product details).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for recommendations but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives such as plugins_atlas_search or plugins_atlas_get_product. The schema description mentions product_id for stock-alternative mode, but that is not in the tool description itself. No clear exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.