Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compose_lofi_generative

Create a unique lofi track on every call, with varied chords, arrangement, drums, melody, bass, and tempo. Uses procedural generation to deliver a different composition each time.

Instructions

Generate a UNIQUE lofi track on every call. Unlike the old compose_lofi_track which hardcoded everything, this one uses progression_generate, arrangement_plan, drum_pattern, melody_generate, and bassline_generate primitives. Each seed produces a meaningfully different song: different chords, section layout, drum density, melody contour, bass feel, and tempo (within lofi range).

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": "compose_lofi_generative"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it generates unique tracks using sub-primitives and varying musical attributes. However, it does not state side effects or project-state impact, such as whether it adds tracks or replaces existing material.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and every clause adding relevant distinction or detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description gives a good sense of what is generated and how it differs from the old tool. It lacks details about required preconditions, return value, or side effects, which is more impactful given there are no annotations or output schema.

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?

The input schema is empty, so the baseline is high, and the description adds useful meaning about output variability. The reference to 'each seed' is confusing because no seed parameter exists in 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?

States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('lofi track'), and distinguishes itself from compose_lofi_track by emphasizing uniqueness and a generative approach.

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?

Clearly contrasts with the old hardcoded compose_lofi_track, implying use when a unique generated lofi arrangement is desired. It does not explicitly address genre-specific siblings like compose_synthwave_generative, though the genre distinction is self-evident.

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