Skip to main content
Glama
nickcapron

creaper

by nickcapron
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

place_motif

Insert a saved motif into an existing MIDI item without deleting its notes, adapting it to the song's key, mode, octave, and speed.

Instructions

Puts a saved motif into a MIDI item (existing notes stay): in the song's key and mode, at an octave and speed that fit the moment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoMove it into this key and mode, e.g. 'D minor', 'D major' (default: as saved)
nameYesA motif from list_motifs
startNoWhere it starts, in QN from the item start
octaveNoOctaves up (+) or down (-), e.g. -1 for low brass
item_idYesMIDI item id from create_midi_item/get_track_details, or "selected"
stretchNoRhythm: 2 = twice as slow (a grand statement), 0.5 = twice as fast
velocityNoPlay every note at this velocity (default: as saved)
semitonesNoExtra transposition

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.19.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that existing notes remain and that the tool auto-fits key, mode, octave, and speed. However, it omits error behavior, return format, and whether the motif must already exist.

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, front-loaded sentence covers the action and key side effect with no filler. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

For an 8-parameter MIDI mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on prerequisites and post-call expectations. It covers the core insert behavior and non-destructive effect, but not enough to fully guide error handling or alternatives.

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 parameter meanings are already well documented. The description loosely echoes key, octave, and speed but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Puts a saved motif into a MIDI item') and adds the non-destructive scope ('existing notes stay'). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_midi_notes and list_motifs without needing schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'in the song's key and mode' describes behavior, not selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when a saved motif is needed.

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