Skip to main content
Glama
wushiray

cakewalkmcp

by wushiray
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

cw_cal_plan

Generates the exact CAL run plan—script source, target dialog field, and data-based proof—without writing files or posting commands; call cw_cal_run to execute it.

Instructions

The exact plan for a CAL run: the script source, the dialog field to write, and how to prove the result from data. Pure — it writes no file and posts no command, so it is safe to call speculatively. Use cw_cal_run to actually do it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
muteNoFor setTrackMute: true mutes, false un-mutes. TrackActive TRUE means AUDIBLE — the shipped script comments it as "Un-mute the track".
nameNoFor renameTrack: the new track name.
portNoFor setTrackRouting: output port.
maxKeyNoFor deleteNotes: high end of the pitch range to remove (inclusive).
minKeyNoFor deleteNotes: low end of the pitch range to remove (inclusive).
channelNoFor setTrackRouting: forced MIDI channel, 1..16.
percentNoFor scaleVelocity / setDuration: the percentage to scale by.
programYesWhich generated program to plan. NOTES: setVelocity | scaleVelocity | addNotes | deleteNotes | transpose | setDuration | queryNotes | dumpNotes. TRACKS: renameTrack | setTrackMute | setTrackRouting.
velocityNoFor setVelocity: the value to set every note to.
intervalsNoFor addNotes: semitone offsets to add above each source note, e.g. [12,16,19]. Negative values add below.
semitonesNoFor transpose: the interval. SIGNED.
trackIndexNoFor the track programs: which track, 0-based. CAL counts project tracks from 0; an exported .mid puts the conductor first, so CAL track N is export track N+1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden well: it says the tool writes no file and posts no command, making it safe to call speculatively, and it describes the main returned plan components. It could be slightly richer about determinism or state dependence, but the safety profile and output nature are clearly disclosed.

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?

The description is three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the tool returns, then gives the key behavioral constraint, then routes to the sibling tool for execution.

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 12-parameter planning tool with a 100%-covered schema but no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what the plan contains and why the call is safe. It does not expand the domain term CAL or explain any possible state dependence, leaving minor gaps.

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 all 12 parameters are already well documented in the input schema, including program-specific meanings. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a high-coverage 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?

The description states a specific output and purpose: it returns the exact plan for a CAL run, including the script source, dialog field to write, and proof method. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cw_cal_run by saying that cw_cal_run is for actually performing the action.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It clearly frames the tool as a speculative, side-effect-free planning step and directly names the alternative cw_cal_run for actual execution. The when-to-use and when-to-use-the-other-tool distinction is explicit.

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