messier-live

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Crossfade

crossfade

Transition between two DJ decks in beat-synced time by firing the incoming deck on the next bar and adjusting volumes over a set number of bars.

Instructions

Beat-synced crossfade: fire the incoming deck on the next bar, then ramp the incoming deck up and the outgoing deck down over bars bars.

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": {
      "to_deck": "<to_deck>"
    },
    "name": "crossfade"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bars`	No
`to_deck`	Yes
`fire_incoming`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the core behavior well: it fires the target deck on the next bar and ramps volumes over a configurable duration. However, it does not clarify behavior when `fire_incoming` is false, nor prerequisites like deck state.

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?

A single focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and conveys the operation's timing and volume behavior without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for the core crossfade behavior and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But it omits the role of `fire_incoming` and any expected deck state, leaving a small but real gap for correct invocation.

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 adds meaning to `bars` (ramp duration) and `to_deck` ('incoming deck'), but it does not explain `fire_incoming` at all. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is partial compensation; the missing parameter semantics keep it from scoring higher.

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 names a specific operation, 'beat-synced crossfade', and details the exact sequence: fire the incoming deck on the next bar, then ramp incoming up and outgoing down over `bars` bars. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_deck or set_deck_volume.

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 phrase 'beat-synced crossfade' implies the intended use case, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer when this is the appropriate choice from the name and surrounding context.

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