Wubble

Create Wubble sound effect and wait

wubble_create_sound_effect_and_wait

Destructive

Create Wubble sound effect and wait. Consumes Wubble requests or credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`loop`	No	Whether the sound effect should loop.
`text`	Yes	Sound effect description.
`output_format`	No	Optional output format.
`timeout_seconds`	No	Maximum seconds to wait for completion. Max 45.
`duration_seconds`	No	Optional duration from 0.5 to 30 seconds.
`prompt_influence`	No	Optional prompt influence from 0 to 1.
`poll_interval_seconds`	No	Seconds between status checks. Max 10.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Developer-service error envelope when the call fails.
`success`	Yes	Whether the developer-service request succeeded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedJul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds 'Consumes Wubble requests or credits' beyond annotations, which already declare destructiveHint=true. No contradiction. However, no mention of other behavioral traits like rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Concise at two sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words, though could benefit from more structured presentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite good schema and annotations, the description is minimal and fails to explain the creation workflow, when to wait vs not, or how it differs from sibling tools. Leaves agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with full parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters, meeting the baseline expectation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Create Wubble sound effect and wait' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'wubble_generate_sound_effect', leaving ambiguity about when to use this tool instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wubble_generate_sound_effect' or other creation tools. The description lacks context for decision-making.

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

All Wubble tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?