loopclub-mcp

Build a loopclub loop

build_loop

Turn track specs into a loopclub ?jam= deep link with ASCII grid preview, lit-cell count, and instruments, so users can audition and rent loop cells in-app.

Instructions

Turn a described beat into a loopclub link. Returns a ?jam= deep link, an ASCII grid preview, the lit-cell count, and the instruments used. The user opens the link to audition the loop free and rent the cells in-app. Read loopclub://vocabulary and loopclub://genres first for idiomatic loops.

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": {
      "tracks": "<tracks>"
    },
    "name": "build_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	optional label, used in the share copy
`tracks`	Yes	the loop, as a list of tracks

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (deep link, ASCII grid, lit-cell count, instruments), the free-audition/paid-rent model, and a prerequisite read order. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or whether built loops persist.

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?

Four tight sentences: purpose first, return values second, downstream workflow third, prerequisite last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs, with 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must cover returns and it does, naming each returned field. Missing are failure modes, auth/persistence behavior for a no-annotation tool, but the core is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so instrument/steps/notes/pitch semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('turn a described beat into a loopclub link') and enumerates the concrete artifacts returned. It does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling describe_loop, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: the link is opened to audition free and rent cells in-app, and it explicitly directs the agent to read loopclub://vocabulary and loopclub://genres first. No when-not or alternative-vs-describe_loop guidance, so not a 5.

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

Deploy Server