karaoke-maker-3000

Replace karaoke lyrics

replace_karaoke_lyrics

DestructiveIdempotent

Save only the complete replacement lyrics explicitly supplied or approved by the user. Preserves the same project. An unstarted or unprepared review draft is saved without starting or charging; discuss any returned fresh quote before start_karaoke. An already prepared project uses Studio's full realignment and retains its current version until success. Use the current revision and reuse the same command key after a lost response. Never treat an unverified ASR draft or invented words as user-approved lyrics. Discuss progress in chat.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>",
      "lyrics": "<lyrics>"
    },
    "name": "replace_karaoke_lyrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lyrics`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`expected_revision`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`media`	No
`quote`	No
`stage`	No
`status`	No
`visual`	No
`project`	No
`progress`	No
`can_retry`	No
`can_start`	No
`demo_mode`	No
`can_cancel`	No
`project_id`	No
`studio_url`	No
`can_handoff`	No
`lyrics_source`	No
`preview_ready`	No
`visual_source`	No
`visual_warning`	No
`command_version`	No
`project_revision`	No
`can_replace_lyrics`	No
`can_update_visuals`	No
`visual_preferences`	No
`needs_lyrics_review`	No
`lyrics_search_outcome`	No
`lyrics_search_provider`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses real behavioral consequences: the project is preserved, an unstarted/unprepared draft is saved without starting or charging, and an already prepared project gets a full realignment while retaining its current version until success. It also explains the lost-response recovery pattern with the same command key, which reinforces idempotentHint with actionable context, and the revision-based concurrency expectation implied by destructiveHint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and most subsequent sentences carry distinct operational information (charging, realignment, revision, idempotency). It is dense and slightly run-on, and the closing "Discuss progress in chat" is more policy than tool definition, but there is little outright waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive, idempotent mutation with an output schema, the description covers input validity, charging, failure/recovery, and effect on prepared vs. unprepared projects. It leaves minor gaps such as what a fresh quote response contains and confirmation requirements, which the output schema partly covers.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% on four required params, so the description must carry the semantics, and it does: lyrics must be complete and user-approved, expected_revision must be the current revision, and idempotency_key must be reused after a lost response. project_id is only implied by "Preserves the same project", and no format/pattern hints are given, leaving a small gap.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (save replacement lyrics for a karaoke project) and constrains the input to text explicitly supplied or approved by the user. It is distinguishable from get_karaoke_lyrics and start_karaoke without opening any schema, and it names start_karaoke as the downstream step.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states preconditions (complete, user-approved lyrics only; never unverified ASR drafts or invented words) and sequencing relative to start_karaoke when a fresh quote is returned. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use rule against siblings such as prepare_karaoke or retry_karaoke, so guidance is clear but not a full decision table.

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

All karaoke-maker-3000 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?