Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
boraswim

Bosca Ceoil MCP

by boraswim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

edit_arrangement

Place patterns on specific bars of a song timeline, writing up to eight channel patterns per bar while leaving other bars unchanged; optionally set a loop or clear the rest first.

Instructions

Places patterns on the timeline. Each bar plays up to 8 patterns at once, on separate channels. Writes whole bars starting at at_bar, leaving other bars alone. Unless a loop is given, the loop then covers the whole song.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barsYesOne entry per bar, each a list of up to 8 channels holding a pattern index or null. [[0, 2], [1, 2, null, 3]] is two bars.
at_barNoBar to start writing at, 0 by default.
loop_endNoBar after the last bar of the loop.
loop_startNo
replace_allNoClears the rest of the timeline first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: writes are whole-bar starting at at_bar, other bars are untouched, and an omitted loop defaults to the whole song. However it never warns that replace_all clears the remainder of the timeline, which matters for a tool annotated destructiveHint=false.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The channel explanation is slightly redundant with the bars schema description but is justified as orientation for a nested structure.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers the core write model for a mutation tool with no output schema, but omits whether edits are undoable and does not flag the destructive potential of replace_all or how out-of-range pattern indices are handled.

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?

Schema coverage is already 80%, and the description still adds meaning the schema does not: the default loop span covering the whole song clarifies loop_start/loop_end as a pair, and 'leaving other bars alone' clarifies the write boundary around at_bar.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Places patterns on the timeline') and immediately explains the arrangement model (bars, up to 8 channels per bar). That distinguishes it from pattern-level siblings like add_pattern/update_pattern, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus update_pattern or create_song, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The sentences about whole-bar writes and loop coverage describe mechanics rather than guiding tool selection.

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