Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vcv-rack-mcp

vcv-rack-mcp

by sandraschi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

show_patch_card

Shows a visual summary of a VCV Rack patch. Provide a patch ID to view an in-chat card with patch components and settings.

Instructions

Show a rich in-chat card for a patch.

Return Format

ToolResult with PrefabApp content.

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": {
      "patch_id": "<patch_id>"
    },
    "name": "show_patch_card"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patch_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states core function but doesn't disclose error handling, data loading, or whether it is read-only. Minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second notes return format. Efficient but the return format line ('ToolResult with PrefabApp content') could be clearer.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter) and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate but lacks details on what the card contains or prerequisites.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'patch_id' parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Show a rich in-chat card for a patch' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'show_catalog_card' by naming, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'show_catalog_card' or 'vcv_patch'. The description only states function, not context.

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