PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

review_record_feedback

Record producer feedback and lock accepted elements in a Review Session so later revisions preserve approved sound, notes, rhythm, register, processing, level, placement, or role.

Instructions

Record the producer's explicit feedback and locks in a Review Session.

Feedback outranks measurements. Locks protect accepted elements (sound,
notes, rhythm, register, processing, level, placement, role) from later
revisions. Changes no project state. Silence and good measurements never
count as approval. Use sound_record_feedback for feedback on a sound
palette.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feedback`	Yes	The producer's explicit structured feedback and any locks on accepted elements.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`assets`	No
`status`	No	created
`request`	Yes
`blockers`	No
`feedback`	No
`warnings`	No
`asset_sets`	No
`created_at`	No
`updated_at`	No
`comparisons`	No
`evaluations`	No
`section_map`	No
`process_local`	No
`source_run_id`	Yes
`revision_plans`	No
`schema_version`	No	1.0
`revision_passes`	No
`source_sections`	No
`source_snapshot`	No
`review_session_id`	Yes
`delivery_manifests`	No
`current_next_action`	No	Attach one exported full-mix bounce.
`source_pattern_plan`	No
`source_sound_palette`	No
`source_note_sequences`	No
`source_manual_handoffs`	No
`source_creation_outcome`	No
`source_processing_receipts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv11.0.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), yet the description adds real behavior: it 'Changes no project state', locks persist to constrain 'later revisions', and silence/measurements never constitute approval. It does not clarify feedback_id idempotency or lock-release behavior, but the added semantics are substantial.

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-loads purpose in the first sentence, then adds scoping, lock semantics, and the sibling pointer in tight sentences. No padding, though the multi-line formatting is slightly loose.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, annotations cover safety, and the schema exhaustively documents the feedback object. The description supplies the key behavioral rules, leaving only minor gaps (idempotency, lock release) that the schema covers.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'feedback' parameter is fully documented via $ref, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description enumerates lock kinds (sound, notes, rhythm, register, processing, level, placement, role) which maps onto the schema's lock_types enum but adds little beyond restating it.

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+resource ('Record the producer's explicit feedback and locks in a Review Session') and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('Use sound_record_feedback for feedback on a sound palette'). An agent can distinguish it from sound_record_feedback without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear alternative ('Use sound_record_feedback for feedback on a sound palette') and the rule that only explicit feedback counts ('Feedback outranks measurements. Silence and good measurements never count as approval'). It does not address the other review-lifecycle siblings (review_evaluate, review_apply_revision, review_plan_revision), so routing is only partial.

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

Deploy Server