Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_update_section

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit a timeline section's name, time, note, or description for an event. Requires host-edit permission and a user confirmation before the change applies.

Instructions

Edit a timeline section's name, time, note, or description. Subject to the section's host-edit permissions. 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
noteNonote to the DJ for this section
timeNoscheduled time, e.g. "05:00 pm"
eventIdYes
sectionIdYes
descriptionNo
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. Addedv1.5.1
  4. Removedv1.4.3
  5. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent mutation, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: a client-dependent confirmation flow with a preview + confirmToken two-step and a pointer to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. That is exactly the interaction policy an agent must know before calling.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose before prerequisites and the confirmation caveat. The confirmation sentence is dense and slightly long, but every clause carries information the caller needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the phase-1 preview/confirmToken response and the elicitation path. It leaves the required identifier semantics (eventId/sectionId) to the schema, which is acceptable but a minor gap for a mutating tool.

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?

Description names the four optional editable fields, partially compensating for 43% schema coverage, but says nothing about the required eventId/sectionId or the confirmToken mechanics (which the schema itself documents very well). Baseline 3 for a schema that carries most of the load.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('timeline section'), and enumerates the editable fields (name, time, note, description). The resource scope cleanly separates it from vibo_update_song, vibo_create_section, and vibo_delete_section without needing to name them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives the governing prerequisite ('subject to the section's host-edit permissions') and the confirmation requirement, which is real usage context. It doesn't contrast against sibling tools, but no true alternative exists for editing an existing section, so the omission is minor.

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