Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_comment_on_song

Leave a comment on a specific song for the DJ during event planning. Requires event, section, and song IDs, and includes a confirmation step before posting.

Instructions

Leave a comment / note for the DJ on a specific song. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
songIdYesSong _id (from vibo_get_section_songs).
eventIdYesEvent id.
messageYesThe comment text.
sectionIdYesSection id.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Addedv1.5.3
  4. Removedv1.4.3
  5. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the important confirmation behavior: it asks the user first, and in fallback mode the first call returns a preview and confirmToken while only a repeat call proceeds. This is valuable behavioral context for a mutating tool and goes well beyond what annotations alone convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff: the first states the purpose, the second explains the confirmation mechanism. It is front-loaded and every clause contributes. It is slightly dense due to the parenthetical 'see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE', but remains efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's two-phase confirmation complexity and lack of an output schema, the description covers the critical invocation pattern: first call preview/confirmToken, repeat call with token, and client-supported prompt. It omits details about successful responses or failure states, but the schema and annotations cover safety and parameter requirements, making it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does contextualize the confirmToken within the two-step flow, which is already thoroughly explained in the schema. No additional semantic value for songId, eventId, sectionId, or message.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Leave a comment / note for the DJ on a specific song.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like vibo_comment_on_section (section-level comment) and vibo_delete_song_comment (deletion). The purpose is immediately actionable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context ('on a specific song') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to other commenting tools. It does not mention alternatives such as vibo_comment_on_section or when a song comment is inappropriate. Usage is inferred from the tool name and resource reference rather than stated.

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