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

scratch-unified-mcp

by blessed0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sb3 Vm Mix Wav

sb3_vm_mix_wav

Mix sound tracks offline to generate WAV audio as base64, along with event count and duration in seconds.

Instructions

Offline sound mix as WAV base64 + event count + seconds. (proxied)

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": "sb3_vm_mix_wav"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the operation is offline and proxied, and reveals the output shape, but it does not state whether the tool mutates state, requires a loaded project, or has side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that packs several useful details: offline, sound mixing, WAV base64, event count, and seconds. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it is slightly telegraphic and could benefit from a fuller sentence.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is too thin for an agent to know what 'sound mix' operates on, how it relates to the current project or VM state, or what the returned event count represents. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing semantic context about the tool's inputs or prerequisites.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output behavior instead.

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 states the operation ('Offline sound mix') and the result format ('WAV base64 + event count + seconds'), which conveys what the tool does. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling VM tools like sb3_vm_state or sb3_vm_pen_png, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of expected project state. The word 'Offline' hints at context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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