Skip to main content
Glama
synopsys0

PostFader V10 — FL Studio MCP Server

by synopsys0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

plugins_scan_parameters

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan a plug-in's parameter range and return only real controls with display strings, avoiding the overhead of paging through padded VST slots.

Instructions

De-pad a whole plug-in in one call; prefer this over paging a VST.

FL reports a padded maximum rather than a parameter count for VST plug-ins
-- often thousands of slots for a VST3 -- with the real controls sparse
inside it.
Paging that with `plugins_inspect_parameter_map` is about a thousand round
trips. This walks the range inside FL and returns only what is real, with
each control's display string, which is what actually identifies it.

Check `truncated` before treating the result as the whole plug-in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoExclusive last index. Defaults to FL's reported count.
startNoFirst index to examine. Defaults to 0.
targetNoExplicit mixer_effect or global channel_generator target. Mutually exclusive with legacy track_index/slot_index.
slot_indexNoLegacy zero-based effect slot (0 through 9). Supply it with track_index, or use target, never both.
max_indicesNoStop after examining this many indices.
max_resultsNoStop after collecting this many real controls.
track_indexNoLegacy zero-based mixer track index. Supply it together with slot_index, or use target, never both.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv10.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the padding phenomenon, that the tool walks the range inside FL and returns only real controls with display strings, and that results may be truncated (via the `truncated` flag). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand edge cases.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured, front-loading the main action and rationale. It uses three short paragraphs to explain the problem, the alternative, and the caution about truncation, with no wasted words. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema) and the rich schema and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, why it's needed, the alternative, and the critical `truncated` check. It doesn't repeat schema details but provides the contextual rationale an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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%, with each parameter (target, start, end, max_indices, max_results, track_index, slot_index) having a clear description. The tool description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but since the schema already covers them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not introduce ambiguity or omit necessary parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('De-pad') and resource ('a whole plug-in'), clearly distinguishing itself from the paging approach via plugins_inspect_parameter_map. It explains the problem (FL's padded maximum) and the solution (returns only real controls with display strings), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'prefer this over paging a VST' and names the alternative `plugins_inspect_parameter_map`, explaining the inefficiency of paging (thousands of round trips). It also warns to check `truncated` before treating the result as complete, providing clear guidance on when and how to use the tool.

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