PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

review_apply_revision

Destructive

Apply an authorized revision plan from a review session to the FL Studio project, with write-mode receipts, stopping on blockers or unknown outcomes.

Instructions

Apply the revision plan returned by review_plan_revision to the project.

Takes only a plan recorded in this Review Session and runs it through a
Production Run. Needs authorized_to_modify=true from a request to revise
in this task. Runs one readiness preflight, enables write mode for the
run, applies the plan's operations with receipts, and releases write mode.
Stops on a blocker or unknown outcome. Then ask the user for a new export
(review_get view=export_request) and compare it with review_compare.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Review Session, the recorded revision_plan_id, and task-scoped authorization.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`status`	Yes
`timing`	No
`blockers`	No
`warnings`	No
`started_at`	No
`finished_at`	No
`project_saved`	No
`source_run_id`	Yes
`affected_roles`	No
`manual_handoffs`	No
`preflight_result`	No
`retained_anchors`	No
`revision_pass_id`	Yes
`revision_plan_id`	Yes
`affected_sections`	No
`generated_outputs`	No
`review_session_id`	No	review-session-unknown
`shutdown_verified`	No
`technical_outcome`	No
`after_bounce_state`	No	not_requested
`operation_receipts`	No
`processing_outcome`	No
`rollback_attempted`	No
`arrangement_outcome`	No
`authorization_count`	No
`continuation_run_id`	No
`session_fingerprint`	No
`project_state_digest`	No
`source_evaluation_id`	Yes
`audible_quality_outcome`	No
`write_mode_enable_count`	No
`source_production_run_id`	No
`write_mode_disable_count`	No
`readiness_preflight_count`	No
`automatic_replay_attempted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv11.0.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by describing the exact execution sequence: one readiness preflight, enabling write mode, applying operations with receipts, and releasing write mode. It also discloses failure semantics ('Stops on a blocker or unknown outcome') and the authorization requirement, which the destructiveHint/non-idempotent hints alone would not convey.

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 purpose, then behavior, then the recommended follow-up, so the agent can stop reading early. It is dense and slightly packed, but essentially every sentence carries actionable information.

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 explain return values, and it covers everything else the agent needs: preconditions, execution lifecycle, stop conditions, and next steps. Complete for a destructive, non-idempotent apply operation.

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 description coverage is 100% so the schema carries most parameter meaning, but the description adds real value by stating the required value for the authorization flag ('authorized_to_modify=true') and scoping it to this task. It does not, however, explain any of the nested RevisionRequest fields such as allowed_changes or processing_policy.

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 and resource ('Apply the revision plan ... to the project') and names the sibling that produces its input (review_plan_revision). An agent can distinguish it from review_plan_revision and project_apply_edits without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Takes only a plan recorded in this Review Session', 'Needs authorized_to_modify=true from a request to revise in this task') and spells out the downstream workflow (review_get view=export_request, then review_compare). The session-scoping constraint also implicitly excludes plans from other sources.

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

Deploy Server