PostFader V12 — FL Studio MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run a Production Run plan against the live FL Studio project without changes, checking structure, order, targets, and scope. Returns executability, blockers, and a plan digest for review.

Instructions

Dry-run a Production Run plan against the live project without changing it.

Checks the plan's structure, operation order, capabilities, targets, and
scope rules against the current FL session and returns whether it is
executable, its blockers, and a plan digest. include_readiness adds the
setup scorecard (Piano Roll setup, missing plug-ins, manual steps). Use it
only when the user wants a plan reviewed or a diagnosis: run_execute
performs the same checks itself, so do not validate before every run.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan`	Yes	{plan_id, operations}: ordered operations, each with a unique operation_id; get each operation's fields from run_describe_operations.
`request`	Yes	The task: brief, scope, preservation rules, allowed change categories, completion target, and authorized_to_modify=true when the user asked for project changes.
`include_readiness`	No	Also return the setup readiness scorecard: blockers, limitations, and manual actions.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`readiness`	No
`validation`	Yes
`schema_version`	No	1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv11.0.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by enumerating what is checked (structure, operation order, capabilities, targets, scope rules) and what comes back (executability, blockers, plan digest). The include_readiness side effect is disclosed too. It doesn't discuss cost/rate limits or session-state prerequisites, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: the action, the checks/returns, and the routing rule. The negative guidance ('do not validate before every run') is placed last, after the positive case, which reads naturally.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them briefly. For a read-only, idempotent validation tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning for include_readiness beyond the schema text by naming concrete scorecard contents (Piano Roll setup, missing plug-ins, manual steps). The request/plan parameters are left to their schema descriptions.

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 — 'Dry-run a Production Run plan against the live project without changing it' — and immediately contrasts itself with the sibling run_execute. An agent can distinguish it from run_execute 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names when to use it ('only when the user wants a plan reviewed or a diagnosis') and when not to ('do not validate before every run' because run_execute performs the same checks). This is the exact routing guidance an agent needs.

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

Deploy Server