Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

theory_song_form

Get a macro song form layout. Lists all 14 forms or details a named form's section sequence, applicable genres, and total bar range.

Instructions

Return a macro song form layout. Without args, lists all 14 forms. With name, returns the section sequence, applicable genres, and total bar 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": "theory_song_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The disclosure covers output content (section sequence, genres, total bar range) and the no-arg listing behavior. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but given no annotations, this is a reasonable transparency level.

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 concise sentences clearly organize the no-arg and with-name cases. No redundant information is present.

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 lookup tool, the description covers the main outputs and modes. It does not specify invalid-name behavior, but overall it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 name parameter is implied to be an optional form identifier, but valid values and format are not specified. The description clarifies optionality but leaves the exact accepted strings ambiguous.

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 returns macro song form layouts and specifies distinct behaviors for no arguments versus a name argument. This uniquely identifies its function among the theory_* siblings.

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?

The description explains the two invocation modes but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over related theory tools like theory_section or theory_genre. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving selection to the caller.

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