Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

vibo-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

vibo_update_song

Update songs in a section by marking must-play, flagging do-not-play, or setting a DJ comment. Requires confirmation before applying changes.

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

TableJSON 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?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing the confirm-first behavior, the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback, the 90-character comment limit with emoji counting double, and that validation happens before anything is sent. This is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then constraints, then confirmation flow. Every sentence carries information, though the confirmation paragraph is long enough to slightly test readability.

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 does not describe the phase-1 preview shape or success response, which would help an agent handle the confirmToken flow. Otherwise the mutation, its constraints, and its confirmation semantics are adequately covered for a 7-parameter tool.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a real constraint not encoded in the schema ('provide at least one field' – there is no anyOf/minProperties enforcing this) and re-frames the confirmToken's usage context. It adds some value without fully restating the schema.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Update songs in a section') and enumerates the exact mutations available (must-play, do-not-play, comment). This distinguishes it from single-song siblings like vibo_comment_on_song and vibo_toggle_song_like, which operate on one song at a time.

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?

It states the minimum requirement ('Provide at least one field') and describes the confirmation workflow in detail, including both client modes. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as vibo_comment_on_song, but the batch/section scoping is clear from context.

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