Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

plugin_discover

Lists third-party VST/AU plugins scanned by Waveform. Filters by kind, format, manufacturer, or name. Returns uniqueId for plugin_add.

Instructions

List third-party VST/AU plugins Waveform has scanned. Optional filters: kind ('instrument'|'effect'), format ('VST3'|'VST'|'AU'), manufacturer (substring), name (substring). Use the returned uniqueId as the type arg to plugin_add for VST3 instantiation.

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": "plugin_discover"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
nameNo
formatNo
manufacturerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only listing of already-scanned plugins and substring filter semantics, but it does not state whether a scan is triggered, whether the call has side effects, or how results are returned.

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 filler; the core purpose comes first, filters follow compactly, and the downstream usage closes the description.

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 discovery call, the description covers the necessary inputs and names the key return value (uniqueId) for downstream use. Without an output schema it could say more about the result shape, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: it marks all four parameters as optional filters and documents the allowed values for kind and format plus substring matching for manufacturer and name.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('third-party VST/AU plugins Waveform has scanned'), and the available filters. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plugin_list without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as a discovery step and explicitly routes the returned uniqueId into plugin_add for VST3 instantiation. It does not explicitly contrast with plugin_list or state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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