Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
modularsynth-mcp

modularsynth-mcp

by gregorybruneau
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

New patch

new_patch
Destructive

Replace the current rack with the default starter patch (keyboard to oscillator to filter to amplifier to output); the change can be undone.

Instructions

Replace the rack with the default starter patch (keyboard → oscillator → filter → amplifier → output). The user can undo it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "new_patch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds useful context by confirming the rack is replaced and that the user can undo it, which is meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the undo reassurance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the action, the resulting patch structure, and undoability. It is nearly complete, though it could mention whether unsaved changes are lost or how it relates to presets.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the rack with the default starter patch,' and even spells out the resulting signal chain. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like load_preset or add_module.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'default starter patch' and 'Replace the rack,' suggesting a reset-to-default action. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over load_preset, add_module, or undo, and no stated preconditions.

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