Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_create_section

Create a new timeline section for an event's music plan, with a name and optional placement, and set visibility for hosts or guests.

Instructions

Create a new timeline section. Name is required, max 45 characters (Vibo's limit, checked before anything is sent). Place it with afterSectionId (directly after that section) or position (0-based index; 0 = first); with neither it goes at the end of the timeline, like the web app. visibility "host" (default) = "Me and DJ", "public" = visible to guests too. Vibo gives a section a host creates "hosts can order songs" = off, which only the DJ can turn on. Returns the new section _id. 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
nameYesSection name, 1–45 characters.
noteNoNote to the DJ (set right after creating, via updateSection).
timeNoScheduled time as "hh:mm am/pm", e.g. "05:30 pm".
eventIdYesEvent id.
positionNo0-based timeline index for the new section; past the end appends. Use instead of afterSectionId.
visibilityNo"host" (default) = Me and DJ only; "public" = guests can see it too.
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.
afterSectionIdNoPut the new section directly after this section _id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond them, disclosing the mandatory confirmation flow (preview + confirmToken on repeat call), the client-capability branch, the client-side validation of the 45-char limit before anything is sent, side effects of creation (the 'hosts can order songs' default being off), and the returned _id.

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 verb+resource is front-loaded and nearly every clause carries information the schema lacks (confirmation protocol, defaults, placement precedence). It is dense and long for a two-sentence description, and visibility semantics are partly duplicated from the schema, but there is little pure filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a non-trivial two-phase confirmation protocol, the description supplies the placement rules, defaults, side effects, returned identifier, and full confirmation mechanics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: the precedence between afterSectionId and position, the append behavior when neither is given, the semantic mapping of visibility values to audience, and a warning not to invent or reuse confirmToken. Only a little redundant restating of the enum defaults keeps it from a 5.

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 ('Create a new timeline section') and immediately scopes it against siblings by explaining creation-time placement rather than later mutation (update_section, reorder_sections). An agent can distinguish it from the other section tools without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly covers the placement alternatives: afterSectionId for direct-after, position for index, and the documented fallback (append) when neither is supplied. It also states when the confirmToken path applies (client without elicitation) versus when it is ignored, which is genuine 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