Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

edit_export_chord_chart

Export a chord chart text file from the current edit's markers and tempo. Choose between lead sheet and Nashville notation formats, with markers named as section labels.

Instructions

Export a chord-chart text file from the markers + tempo of the current Edit. format ∈ {lead_sheet, nashville}. Markers should be named with section labels (e.g. 'verse', 'chorus').

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": {
      "out_path": "<out_path>"
    },
    "name": "edit_export_chord_chart"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNolead_sheet
out_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates an export/write action to out_path, but it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, what happens if markers are missing, or what the tool returns.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, immediately identifying the action, output, and source. Every sentence adds relevant detail without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple export tool, the description covers the essential context: source data, output type, and format options. It lacks minor details such as overwrite behavior and return value, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description clarifies the format parameter by listing allowed values and explains that markers should use section labels. out_path is not explicitly defined but is reasonably inferable as the destination file path.

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 description clearly states the tool exports a chord-chart text file from the markers and tempo of the current Edit. It also enumerates the supported formats, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from related export tools.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when a chord chart derived from markers and tempo is needed. It could more explicitly contrast with edit_export_midi, but the source and output type are clear enough.

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