@jam-jam/convert-mcp

List Mastering presets

jj_list_mastering_presets

Lists saved Mastering presets with their full settings, newest first, plus built-in preset IDs valid for jj_master_audio. Use it to choose a preset before mastering audio.

Instructions

Lists the Mastering presets saved on the account, newest first (GET /mastering/presets), with their full settings, plus the ids of the read-only built-in presets (builtin:balanced, ...) which are valid as the preset of jj_master_audio. No pagination: an account keeps 50 presets at most. Open to any account, free or Premium. Counts one unit of the daily read quota.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jj_list_mastering_presets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: read semantics (GET), no pagination because of the 50-preset cap, open to any account including free tier, and an explicit cost of one daily read-quota unit. These are precisely the operational facts an agent needs before calling.

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-loaded with what it does before the behavioral details, and every clause earns its place. It is a single dense sentence with parenthetical asides, which is slightly harder to scan than it could be, but nothing is extraneous.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: full settings for saved presets plus ids of read-only built-ins. Combined with quota and pagination behavior, nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no argument meaning to add, and the description does not waste space restating an empty schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Lists the Mastering presets saved on the account'), states ordering (newest first), and is distinguishable from jj_create_mastering_preset or jj_mastering_capabilities by what it returns.

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?

Clear context for why an agent would call it: the built-in preset ids returned are explicitly valid as the `preset` argument of jj_master_audio, which routes the agent between the two tools. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-call guidance, so it is not a full 5.

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