Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crystalize

Crystalize

by Peyton-C
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_mix

Save a named DJ mix plan with tempo, key, and bar-by-bar actions, replacing any existing plan under that name.

Instructions

Save a plan under a name, refusing one plan_mix would refuse. Saving the name again replaces it.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "bpm": "<bpm>",
      "steps": "<steps>"
    },
    "name": "save_mix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bpmYesThe opening tempo
keyYesThe opening key, Ab for A flat major, Abm for minor
nameYes
stepsYesWhat happens on which bar. Steps on one bar happen together
end_barNoThe bar the mix ends on. Defaults to 16 after the last step

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the two most important traits: validation parity with plan_mix (so calls can fail) and overwrite-on-name-collision, which is effectively a destructive hint. It says nothing about what is returned, whether an existing saved mix is validated first, or whether a live session is affected.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the failure/overwrite behavior is packed into the same breath as the purpose. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested steps array, no annotations and no output schema, this covers the two things an agent most needs to know: it can fail like plan_mix, and it edits in place on name collision. It leaves the return value and the follow-up path (load_mix/play_mix) unstated, which keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the schema already defines bpm, key, steps, bar, deck, disc and end_bar. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, but it does clarify the semantics of the required 'name' parameter by explaining that reusing it replaces the prior save, which is genuinely beyond the schema's bare 'type: string'.

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?

States a specific verb (save) and resource (a plan under a name), and differentiates itself from the sibling plan_mix by describing itself as the persisting counterpart. It stops short of the concrete object type ('mix'/'set') and never says plainly that it writes a set to storage.

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?

Referencing plan_mix's validation implies this is the step after planning, and the replacement sentence tells the agent it is safe to re-save. But there is no explicit 'use this after plan_mix, not instead of it', no mention of list_mixes/load_mix/play_mix as the downstream alternatives, and no stated precondition.

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