Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scratch-unified-mcp

scratch-unified-mcp

by blessed0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sb3 Add Sound

sb3_add_sound

Add a sound file to a Scratch project by providing the target, name, and file path.

Instructions

Add a sound from a file. (proxied)

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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "sb3_add_sound"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
pathYes
targetYes
dataFormatNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the operation adds a sound from a file. It does not disclose side effects, whether existing sounds are overwritten, target requirements, or any proxied behavior beyond the unexplained word '(proxied)'.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is brief and front-loaded, but the parenthetical '(proxied)' is cryptic and does not earn its place. The single sentence is concise yet too under-specified to be considered well-structured.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, this description is far from complete. Even with an output schema available, an agent cannot determine what the parameters mean, how to supply them, or how this operation relates to sibling sound tools.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not explain 'target', 'name', 'path', or 'dataFormat'. The phrase 'from a file' only weakly implies that 'path' is a file path.

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 'Add a sound from a file' states a specific verb and resource, making the core operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'project_add_sound', which also appears to add sounds, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than project_add_sound or other asset-related tools. The parenthetical '(proxied)' hints at some environmental context but does not explain appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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