PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

review_evaluate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Measure an attached bounce as a whole and by section to return findings tied to measurements, without changing FL Studio. Use results to guide revision planning; approval stays separate.

Instructions

Measure an attached bounce as a whole and section by section, with findings.

Reads the files only; makes no FL changes. Returns findings tied to
measurements and sections that review_plan_revision can address.
Measurements support decisions; they never establish the producer's
approval, which only review_record_feedback records.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	Review Session, the attached asset set to measure, and optional authoritative section ranges.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`status`	No	complete
`timing`	No
`findings`	No
`warnings`	No
`evaluated_at`	No
`evaluation_id`	Yes
`source_run_id`	Yes
`top_priorities`	No
`zero_mutations`	No
`analyzer_version`	Yes
`asset_set_digest`	Yes
`goal_evaluations`	No
`masking_analysis`	No
`mutations_applied`	No
`review_session_id`	Yes
`stem_measurements`	No
`section_map_digest`	Yes
`global_measurements`	No
`unavailable_analyses`	No
`audible_quality_state`	No
`reference_comparisons`	No
`technical_audio_state`	No
`analysis_policy_digest`	No
`arrangement_proxy_state`	No
`processing_review_state`	No
`energy_contrast_analysis`	No
`per_section_measurements`	No
`generated_content_analysis`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv11.0.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: it 'reads the files only' with no FL changes, and that measurements never constitute producer approval — a semantic boundary the annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the read-only constraint, then the return semantics and the approval boundary. No filler, though the second and fourth sentences restate constraints that partially overlap.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only measurement tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, side-effect profile, and result routing adequately. The main omission is the precondition that assets must be attached to a review session before evaluating, which the agent must infer from 'attached bounce'.

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% and there is an output schema, so the schema documents the request object, section ranges, reference pairs, tempo and time-signature fields on its own. The description contributes nothing about individual parameters beyond a loose 'section by section' hint, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('measure an attached bounce as a whole and section by section, with findings') and names the sibling tools it feeds into (review_plan_revision, review_record_feedback). An agent can distinguish it from the other review_* siblings, though the phrasing 'an attached bounce' assumes the agent already knows the attachment workflow.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: findings are addressable by review_plan_revision, and approval is recorded only by review_record_feedback. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus those alternatives. It stops short of stating preconditions (assets must already be attached via review_attach_assets).

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

Deploy Server