Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wwise-mcp

wwise-mcp

by linnn-nb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wwise_create_container

Plan and apply wrapping of selected Wwise objects into a new container under their parent, with preview and undo support.

Instructions

Wrap objects into a new container (default RandomSequenceContainer) under their parent and move them in. Two-step: mode='plan' previews + returns a token; mode='apply' with that token creates+moves (undoable).

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": {
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "wwise_create_container"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
object_idsNo
container_nameNo
container_typeNoRandomSequenceContainer
tokenNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step behavior, token flow, and undoability. Missing details on authorization or limits, but adequately describes the core behavioral traits.

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: first states the main operation, second details the two-step mode. No redundant information, front-loaded key action.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and a complex two-step process, the description covers the essential workflow and undo feature. Minor gaps exist (e.g., token validity, scope of undo), but overall it is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining mode and token semantics, but does not elaborate on object_ids, container_name, or container_type beyond mentioning the default.

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 uses specific verbs ('Wrap', 'previews', 'creates+moves') and clearly identifies the resource ('objects into a new container'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wwise_move and wwise_create_events by describing a unique two-step container creation process.

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 explicitly explains the two-step mode ('plan' preview and returns token, 'apply' creates/moves) and notes undoability. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives.

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