Mixx-DJ-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mixx_crate

Create, list, delete, and auto-update Mixxx crates using prompts or rules, and add the currently playing deck track to a crate.

Instructions

Smart crate management for Mixxx.

PORTMANTEAU PATTERN: Consolidates crate creation and management.

SUPPORTED OPERATIONS:

create: Create a crate from a natural language prompt (requires name, prompt)
list: List all crates in the library
delete: Delete a crate by name (requires name)
add_track: Add currently playing track on deck to a crate (requires name, deck)
create_agentic: Create a self-curating crate with an LLM rule (requires name, rule) Rules: "126-132 BPM, Dm or Em, 4+ stars, genre:tech house" The crate auto-updates based on the rule when the server starts.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "message": str, "data": dict}

Examples

mixx_crate("create", name="Peak Time", prompt="tech house 124-128 BPM D minor")
mixx_crate("list")
mixx_crate("add_track", name="Favorites", deck=1)
mixx_crate("create_agentic", name="Morning Warmup",
           rule="126-132 BPM, Dm or Em, 4+ stars, genre:tech house")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`deck`	No
`name`	No
`rule`	No
`prompt`	No
`update`	No	manual
`operation`	Yes
`max_tracks`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — create_agentic crates auto-update on server start — and lists the return shape, but it never warns that delete is destructive/irreversible, nor mentions permissions or side effects on the running library.

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?

Well structured with headers, front-loaded by the portmanteau pattern, and every operation line earns its place. Slight redundancy in stating both a per-operation requirement list and full example invocations keeps it from a 5.

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 7-parameter portmanteau with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers operations, required args, rule syntax, and examples. The gaps are the undocumented update/max_tracks parameters and the absence of any delete-safety warning.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain name, prompt, deck, rule, and the operation enum through the per-operation requirements. However, update (default 'manual') and max_tracks (default 50) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving two parameters opaque.

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?

The description names the resource (crates) and enumerates five concrete operations with their required inputs, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like mixx_library or mixx_ai_set, which is the only thing separating it from 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?

Each operation carries its own routing context (e.g., add_track needs a deck, create_agentic needs a rule), which effectively tells the agent which mode to pick. There is no explicit 'use X instead of Y' guidance relative to sibling tools, so it stops short of 5.

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