Manage DAW tracks by listing, adding, deleting, updating volume, pan, mute, solo, or creating submix buses from selected tracks.
Track operations. action: list | add | delete | update | bus. update uses name, volume_db, pan (-1..1), mute, solo. bus creates a submix named name and routes source_indices to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | No | ||
| mute | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| solo | No | ||
| index | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| volume_db | No | ||
| source_indices | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does explain the bus behavior ('creates a submix and routes source_indices') and the update field set, providing some transparency. However, it omits effects of delete, the meaning of index, and what responses look like, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the action enum. It efficiently conveys the core operations and specific param mappings without fluff. The structure is logical, though it could be slightly clearer if each action had its own line or separators.
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?
Given 8 parameters, 5 actions, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the index parameter, describe the result of delete or list (e.g., return format), or mention any side effects or prerequisites. The agent would need external knowledge to use this tool correctly for non-update/bus actions.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains name, volume_db, pan (with range), mute, solo for update, and source_indices for bus, but leaves index completely unexplained and doesn't clarify the role of all params across other actions. Partial coverage merits a middle score.
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 clearly states the resource (track) and the specific operations (list, add, delete, update, bus) with a brief summary of what each does. It is specific enough to distinguish track operations from sibling tools like transport or midi, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as action or fx, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. It merely enumerates the actions and their parameters, leaving the agent to infer the tool's scope from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.