Arms or unarms a track for recording through its track strip record button and reports whether the change was verified.
Arm or unarm a track for recording, through the track strip's 录制 button. Reports verified from the value read back. Needs a project open and the track visible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arm | Yes | ||
| index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it drives the track-strip record button rather than an internal API, and it reports a `verified` flag read back from the resulting state. It does not say what happens on failure, whether the arm state persists, or how errors surface.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the read-back behavior and the preconditions. Nothing is redundant, though the embedded Chinese button label is ambiguous to a reader unfamiliar with the UI.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, mechanism (UI button), return signal (`verified`), and prerequisites. The main hole is that it never defines `index`, which the schema also leaves bare.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely doesn't. 'arm or unarm' maps loosely to the boolean `arm`, but `index` is never explained (the schema only hints at 1-based via minimum 1) and nothing says how a track is identified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (arm/unarm) and resource (a track, for recording), and even names the UI affordance that is acted on. It is naturally distinct from the mute/solo/volume/pan siblings, but the description never explicitly contrasts with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives two concrete preconditions (a project must be open, the track must be visible), which is real guidance. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over any alternative or what to do if the precondition fails, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.