Mooer Prime M2 MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

import_loop

Destructive

Uploads a WAV to a specified USB loop slot, converts it to 24-bit stereo 44.1 kHz, and backs up any existing loop before replacement.

Instructions

Upload a WAV into a loop slot (USB), replacing its content. WAVs of any common PCM format are converted to 24-bit stereo 44.1 kHz. A non-empty slot is first exported to the backups folder.

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": {
      "loop": "<loop>",
      "file": "<file>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "import_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes
`loop`	Yes
`name`	No
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: it discloses automatic format conversion to 24-bit stereo 44.1 kHz and, importantly, that a non-empty slot is backed up to the backups folder before being overwritten. That pre-emptive backup materially softens what destructiveHint=true otherwise implies. It does not mention the confirm requirement or whether the operation can be undone after the fact.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by conversion behavior and then the safety behavior. No filler.

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 destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts (conversion, backup, replacement). The remaining gap is parameter-level: where 'file' is resolved from and what 'name' does are left unaddressed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% — only 'confirm' is documented ('Must be true'). The description adds some meaning to 'file' (must be a WAV, any common PCM format) but says nothing about the 'loop' range (1-10) or the optional 'name' parameter (maxLength 20), which is entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: upload a WAV into a loop slot, replacing its content. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like import_sample (samples) and export_loop (opposite direction) without opening any schema.

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 usage context (populating one of 10 USB loop slots with a WAV) is implied clearly, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of how this differs from import_sample for an agent that needs to choose between them.

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