Retrieve the current preset name and preset count for a specific effect on any track, including the master, using its FX index.
Get current preset name and count.
Args: track_index: 0-based track index, or -1 for the master track. fx_index: 0-based FX chain index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never explicitly states that the operation is read-only, what happens for invalid track or FX indices, or how the returned name and count are structured. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a getter with no safety annotations.
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?
The description is a single purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every line contributes necessary information.
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 simple two-parameter getter, the parameters and the high-level return values are introduced, but without an output schema the agent must guess the exact return shape and what 'count' refers to. Edge-case behavior, such as invalid indices or empty presets, is also not addressed.
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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: track_index uses 0-based indexing with -1 for the master track, and fx_index is 0-based within the FX chain. This is exactly the semantic context the bare schema lacks.
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?
The description states a concrete read operation: 'Get current preset name and count,' naming both the resource (current preset) and the expected return payload. The verb/resource pairing clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutators like fx_set_preset and fx_navigate_preset.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_get_params, fx_navigate_preset, or fx_set_preset. The description only explains argument semantics; it does not state when this getter is the right choice or when another tool should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.