Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crystalize

Crystalize

by Peyton-C
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

drop_disc

Places a disc on a chosen deck from the next bar, replacing the current disc, with options to queue it or start on the disc’s next pickup.

Instructions

Play a disc on a deck, replacing what it held, from the next bar. Returns once it is sent, up to a bar later. With queue, it waits on the deck until drop_queue.

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": {
      "disc": "<disc>",
      "deck": "<deck>"
    },
    "name": "drop_disc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deckYes1 to 4
discYesA disc name
queueNo
on_pickupNoLand on the disc's next pickup, where it comes in ahead of the bar, instead of the downbeat

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses the key mutation: it replaces the deck's current disc. It also gives timing (next bar, return up to a bar later) and queue behavior. It does not cover failure modes or deck-state edge cases, so it is strong but not complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and timing. Every sentence contributes behavior; no filler.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the core call semantics: replacement, next-bar scheduling, async return, and queue deferral. Edge cases and error behavior are absent, but the essential context is present.

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 75%; deck, disc, and on_pickup are described in the schema. The description adds meaning for the undocumented queue parameter by explaining that it defers playback until drop_queue. It does not add much for the other parameters, but it closes the main schema gap.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource—playing a disc on a deck—and adds the replacement and next-bar timing. It does not explicitly position the tool against most siblings, though the final sentence references drop_queue.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It explains what the queue parameter does ('waits on the deck until drop_queue') but never states when to choose drop_disc over drop_queue or other playback tools. Usage is implied by the replacement/timing behavior rather than explicitly guided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools