Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LiveSession MCP

LiveSession MCP

by Uri-Rosen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

song_starter

Destructive

Starts a full song idea in one step: builds a genre-based session template with instruments and returns, plus a matching first scene of chords, bass, drums and melody.

Instructions

Start a song in a genre in one step: the session template (instruments, chains, returns) plus a first scene with chords, bass, drums and a melody that fit together. Genres: ballad, pop, mizrahi_pop, singer_songwriter, cinematic, house, six_eight. key/tempo override the genre's; change seed for another idea. build_template=False writes the parts into the existing Piano/Bass/Drums tracks instead.

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": "song_starter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNo
seedNo
genreNoballad
tempoNo
build_templateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates the set. The description adds useful context that build_template=False writes into existing Piano/Bass/Drums tracks, hinting at overwrite behavior, but never states that existing session content may be replaced or destroyed by the default template build. With annotations carrying the safety flag, a 3 reflects the partial add.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output, then genre list, then parameter behaviors in a logical order. Dense but every clause carries information; slight density in the parenthetical instrument list is the only mild cost.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and all five params plus the genre set are covered. The one gap is explicit disclosure of destructive consequences, which matters for a tool flagged destructiveHint=true with five optional parameters.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description meaningfully documents every parameter: it enumerates valid genre values, explains that key/tempo override the genre defaults, that seed selects a different idea, and that build_template=False targets existing tracks. This is exactly the compensation a low-coverage schema needs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a song in a genre') and details exactly what is produced: the session template (instruments, chains, returns) plus a first scene with chords, bass, drums and melody. The 'in one step' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the granular siblings like create_song_template, write_chords and write_bassline.

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?

Gives clear context for when it applies: one-step song startup, and the build_template=False variant for writing into existing Piano/Bass/Drums tracks. 'change seed for another idea' signals iterative use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs create_song_template or build_song_structure), so it falls just short of the top score.

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