waveform-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

loop_drop

Place a loop onto a track. Use fit mode to time-stretch to song tempo or original for natural tempo. Auto-detects duration and starts at end of existing clips.

Instructions

Drop a loop onto a track. mode='fit' time-stretches to song tempo, 'original' uses natural tempo. start_beats defaults to end of existing clips on that track. Auto-detects file duration.

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": {
      "track_id": "<track_id>",
      "loop_path": "<loop_path>"
    },
    "name": "loop_drop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	fit
`track_id`	Yes
`loop_path`	Yes
`start_beats`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description conveys that the tool mutates the project by dropping a loop onto a track, time-stretches based on mode, and auto-detects file duration. It does not spell out every side effect, but the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three short, direct sentences cover the essential behavior and defaults without filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough operational context: what happens, how mode changes behavior, and where clips are placed by default. It omits details like error cases or exact return values, but those are not strongly required here.

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 description explains mode and start_beats, including a default and a unit implication, but does not explicitly define track_id or loop_path. Schema names and the phrase 'file duration' give some hints, but about half of the parameters are not truly described.

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 specifies the action ('Drop a loop onto a track') and adds distinguishing behavior: time-stretch modes and default placement at the end of existing clips. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable even among similar sibling tools.

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?

It explains how to choose between mode='fit' and 'original' and notes the default for start_beats, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like audio_clip_import or clip_add. The guidance is useful but selection context is only implied.

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

Deploy Server