Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SoundMCP

SoundMCP

by Plagnito
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_styles

Lists available music styles and sound effects with their use cases and default tempos, so you can choose appropriate parameters before composing game music.

Instructions

Liste les styles musicaux disponibles (ambiant, lo-fi, chiptune, épique, combat, victoire…) et les effets sonores (SFX), avec leurs usages et tempos par défaut. À consulter avant de créer une musique.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_styles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose what the response contains (styles, SFX, usages, tempos par défaut). It does not explicitly say the call is read-only/side-effect free, which a zero-param listing tool could state for completeness.

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 sentences: the first enumerates what is returned, the second gives the usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the resource and has no redundant wording.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the return payload, and it does so at a useful level of detail. A note on whether results are static or user-scoped, or on the response shape, would close the remaining gap.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the input schema. The description does not add meaning here, but the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 description states a specific verb ("Liste") and resource ("styles musicaux" and "effets sonores / SFX"), and enumerates concrete contents (ambiant, lo-fi, chiptune, épique, combat, victoire). This clearly separates it from the create_* siblings, which produce output rather than enumerate options.

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?

"À consulter avant de créer une musique" gives an explicit trigger condition for calling the tool. It stops short of naming create_music/create_sfx/create_ambience as the follow-up alternatives, so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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