Skip to main content
Glama
nickcapron

creaper

by nickcapron
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_motif

Save a theme’s notes and rhythm as a reusable motif in creaper, storing its key so you can place it into other songs or projects and transpose it later.

Instructions

Saves a motif (a theme's notes and rhythm) to reuse in other songs and projects, like a film or game score's leitmotif: place_motif puts it back in any key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNo...up to here
keyYesThe key it's in, e.g. 'C minor' (so it can move to other keys)
nameYese.g. 'Earthfall title motif'
startNoOnly notes from here (QN from the item start)
item_idYesMIDI item id from create_midi_item/get_track_details, or "selected"
overwriteNo
descriptionNoWhat it's for, e.g. 'the game's signature; reuse in battle and victory'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.19.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 explains what a motif is but omits key behavioral facts: the schema exposes an 'overwrite' flag, yet the description never says what happens when a saved name collides, whether saving is destructive, or what the response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with the leitmotif analogy doing real explanatory work for reuse and the sibling reference at the end. Size is appropriate, though the embedded analogy makes it slightly dense.

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 a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and reuse well but leaves the overwrite parameter's behavior unexplained, which is the most likely way an agent mis-calls it.

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 86% (>80%), so the schema already documents nearly all parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description's 'any key' analogy loosely reinforces the key parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (saves) and resource (motif), then defines the resource in domain terms ('a theme's notes and rhythm'). It also names the sibling that reverses this operation (place_motif), so an agent can distinguish it from place_motif and list_motifs without opening a schema.

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 context for when to use it ('to reuse in other songs and projects') and points to place_motif as the retrieval counterpart. It stops short of stating when not to use it or prerequisites, so it earns a 4 rather than 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

Other Tools