update_music_trackTweak a music track. fields keys: name, volume (0-1), loop, start_frame, duration_frames, position, trim_start_frame, trim_end_frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Partial dict of track fields to patch; allowed keys: name, volume (0-1), loop, start_frame, duration_frames, position, trim_start_frame, trim_end_frame | |
| track_id | Yes | Music track ID, from list_music_tracks or add_music_track |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / fields / descriptionAdded value: +"Partial dict of track fields to patch; allowed keys: name, volume (0-1), loop, start_frame, duration_frames, position, trim_start_frame, trim_end_frame"Input schema / properties / track_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Music track ID, from list_music_tracks or add_music_track"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but no destructive hint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the schema, such as error behavior, idempotency, or side effects. It does not contradict annotations but fails to expand on them.
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 with two sentences: the action and the field keys. It is front-loaded but lacks structure like separate sections. It earns its place without wasting words.
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?
The description omits return values, validation rules, and what constitutes a successful update. Given the nested object parameter and no output schema, the agent lacks critical context for invoking the tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to add parameter details. It does repeat the allowed field keys, which are already in the schema, adding minimal value. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Tweak a music track') and lists the updatable fields, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_asset or update_project, though within its domain (music tracks) it is specific enough.
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 versus alternatives, such as add_music_track or remove_music_track. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a track_id from list_music_tracks) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tool families overlap in purpose, such as await_jobs/get_workflow_status/get_pipeline_progress, update_segment_content/update_segment_prompts, director_note/project_director_note, and scan_script/rescan_voice_blocks. The descriptions do a good job distinguishing them, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection, and there are more than a couple of confusable pairs.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun snake_case convention with clear prefixes like get_, list_, set_, update_, create_, and delete_. Minor exceptions such as director_note, project_director_note, browse_audio_library, and whoami keep it from being perfectly consistent.
At 72 tools, this is far beyond the 50+ extreme range and creates a heavy navigation burden for an agent. Even though the pipeline is complex, this many tools is not well-scoped for an MCP surface.
The surface covers the full script-to-export pipeline: styles, assets, voices, storyboards, segments, scenes, and rendering all have substantial lifecycle support. Some gaps exist—no delete_channel, delete_segment, delete_voice_block, or delete_provider_key—but most missing operations can be worked around through existing tools.