Skip to main content
Glama
synopsys0

PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

review_attach_assets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate exported audio files and attach them to a Review Session. Checks format, size, stability, and hashes, rejecting directories, changing files, and duplicates.

Instructions

Validate exported audio files and attach them to a Review Session.

Paths must be explicit caller-selected files (audio_list_recent_bounces can
find them). Checks format, size, stability, hashes, and alignment evidence;
rejects directories, changing files, and duplicates. Changes no project
state. Evaluate the attached full mix with review_evaluate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestYesReview Session and explicit full-mix, reference, stem, or section file paths.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsNo
statusNocreated
requestYes
blockersNo
feedbackNo
warningsNo
asset_setsNo
created_atNo
updated_atNo
comparisonsNo
evaluationsNo
section_mapNo
process_localNo
source_run_idYes
revision_plansNo
schema_versionNo1.0
revision_passesNo
source_sectionsNo
source_snapshotNo
review_session_idYes
delivery_manifestsNo
current_next_actionNoAttach one exported full-mix bounce.
source_pattern_planNo
source_sound_paletteNo
source_note_sequencesNo
source_manual_handoffsNo
source_creation_outcomeNo
source_processing_receiptsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv11.0.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by listing the validation checks (format, size, stability, hashes, alignment evidence), the rejection conditions (directories, changing files, duplicates), and the reassurance that it changes no project state. It adds real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then constraints and routing. Every sentence carries information with no padding.

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, return values need not be described. The description covers validation, rejection behavior, state impact, and the follow-up tool, which is everything 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%, so the schema documents all fields. The description adds the constraint that paths must be explicit caller-selected files, but gives no detail on the nested asset_kind roles, offsets, or other per-asset fields, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 compound verb ('Validate ... and attach') and a precise resource ('exported audio files ... to a Review Session'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like review_evaluate, review_compare, and review_apply_revision.

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?

Points the agent at audio_list_recent_bounces as the source of paths and at review_evaluate as the downstream step for evaluating the attached full mix. It gives clear context but does not state when NOT to use this tool versus, say, attaching to a session another way.

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