PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

review_start

Read-onlyIdempotent

Open a Review Session on a completed Production Run to evaluate exported bounces against its outputs, palette, receipts and section map without changing project state.

Instructions

Start a Review Session for the result of one completed Production Run.

The session keeps the run's outputs, palette, processing receipts, and
section map as evidence for evaluating bounces of that work. Changes no
project state. Next, have the user export a full mix and attach it with
review_attach_assets. Sessions are process-local unless persist_session
is set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	Yes	source_run_id of a completed Production Run, the brief, focus and preservation rules, revision-pass limit, and persistence policy.

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: 'Changes no project state' and the process-local vs persisted distinction ('Sessions are process-local unless persist_session is set'). It also lists what is captured as evidence (outputs, palette, receipts, section map), which is beyond the annotations.

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 action and scope, then evidence captured, then state/persistence behavior, then the next-step pointer. Every sentence carries information, though 'Changes no project state' partially restates the readOnly annotation.

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?

Given the rich nested schema and the presence of an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers entry conditions, scope, state effects, and sequencing adequately. It lacks explicit routing among the many review_* siblings, which would be the final piece.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents source_run_id, brief, focus, and preserve rules. The description adds only marginal meaning (persist_session behavior, 'one completed Production Run'), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Start) and resource (a Review Session) bounded to 'the result of one completed Production Run,' so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not name the sibling review_* tools it must be distinguished from (e.g., review_evaluate, review_plan_revision), which keeps it out of the top band.

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 clear workflow context: it is the session opener, and the description routes to the next step ('have the user export a full mix and attach it with review_attach_assets'). It stops short of stating when-not to use it or contrasting it with the other review_* entry points.

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

Deploy Server