lms-mcp

Edit queue

queue_edit

Manage the Lyrion Music Server playback queue by clearing all tracks, removing a track at a given index, moving a track to another position, or jumping directly to a specific track.

Instructions

Clear the queue, remove a track by index, move a track, or jump to an index.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "queue_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`index`	No
`action`	Yes
`player`	No	Player MAC address or exact name. Defaults to LMS_DEFAULT_PLAYER or the only player.
`toIndex`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool mutates the queue and implies that clear is destructive, but it does not mention irreversibility, side effects, permissions, or what happens during move and jump operations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource and lists all operations with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It does not specify which parameters are required for each action (e.g., clear needs only action, remove needs index, move needs index and toIndex) or what response to expect.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds meaning by linking actions to index usage (remove by index, jump to an index), but it leaves exact parameter combinations per action and the role of toIndex implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource (the queue) and enumerates four concrete edit operations: clear, remove, move, and jump. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like show_queue or playback_control.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use queue_edit versus alternatives such as show_queue or playback_control, and it offers no exclusions or prerequisites. The listed operations only imply a use case rather than explicitly routing an agent to the right tool.

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

Deploy Server