Skip to main content
Glama

vibo_update_song

DestructiveIdempotent

Update songs in an event section by marking must-play, flagging do-not-play, or setting a DJ comment; confirmation is requested before changes are sent.

Instructions

Update songs in a section: mark must-play, flag as do-not-play, and/or set a comment. Provide at least one field. A comment can be at most 90 characters (Vibo's limit; emoji count double; checked before anything is sent). 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
commentNoComment for the DJ, at most 90 characters.
eventIdYesEvent id.
songIdsYesSong _ids from vibo_get_section_songs.
isFlaggedNomark do-not-play / flagged
sectionIdYesSection id.
isMustPlayNo
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. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / comment / description
      Added value: +"Comment for the DJ, at most 90 characters."
  2. 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"
      +}
  3. 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"
  4. Addedv1.5.3
  5. Removedv1.4.3
  6. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses the 90-character comment cap with emoji double-counting, that the limit is validated before anything is sent, and the full confirmation protocol (preview + confirmToken on repeat call). Those are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive write.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the confirmation protocol — a sensible order. The confirmation sentence is long and dense, and the trailing '(see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE)' pushes detail outside the definition, but no sentence is padding.

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?

For a 7-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the validation limits, the at-least-one-field rule, and the confirm flow well. It does not say what the phase-1 preview/confirmToken response looks like or what a successful update returns, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 description coverage is already 86%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds the cross-field rule that at least one of comment/isFlagged/isMustPlay must be supplied, plus the emoji-counting nuance on comment and a firm restatement of confirmToken usage. The boolean parameters themselves are left to the schema with no extra semantics.

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 with scope ('Update songs in a section') and enumerates the three mutations it can perform: mark must-play, flag do-not-play, set a comment. The plural 'songs' plus the required songIds array distinguishes it as a bulk section-scoped mutation rather than the single-song siblings.

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 a clear operational precondition ('Provide at least one field') and explains exactly how and when the confirmation step applies, including the two-step fallback when the client has no elicitation support. It does not, however, route the agent away from overlapping siblings such as vibo_comment_on_song or vibo_toggle_song_like.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.