Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ensemble_dynamics

Compute per-section velocity multipliers for a section plan, applying them uniformly across drums, bass, keys, lead to build the ensemble's dynamics from quiet intro to peak chorus and soft outro.

Instructions

Return per-section velocity multipliers for a sections_plan. Apply uniformly to drums, bass, keys, lead notes so the whole ensemble breathes together (quiet intro, building verses, peak chorus/bridge, soft outro).

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": "ensemble_dynamics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Return' multipliers but then says 'Apply uniformly', creating ambiguity about whether the tool mutates the project or simply returns values. It also does not clarify how the sections_plan is obtained or whether the operation has side effects.

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 no wasted words. The core output is stated first, and the musical application is explained efficiently.

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 covers purpose, target instruments, and musical shape, but with no output schema and no annotations, it should clarify whether the tool reads a current sections_plan, what the returned multiplier format is, and whether it has side effects. The ambiguity around 'apply' leaves a meaningful gap.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description references sections_plan but does not need to explain parameter syntax. It adds enough context about what the multipliers apply to.

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 clearly states the tool returns per-section velocity multipliers for a sections_plan and identifies the affected instruments (drums, bass, keys, lead). It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like theory_velocity or arrangement_plan.

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 provides clear musical context for when to use it: to make the ensemble breathe together across intro, verses, chorus/bridge, and outro. It implies usage but does not state exclusions or name alternatives, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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