THIRI Chord Intelligence — Music Theory MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output components (root, quality, intervals) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, edge cases, or format constraints. It adds some value but not rich context beyond the annotations.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and outputs. It avoids redundancy and includes the key caveat about the key in a natural way. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description needs to explain return values; it does so by listing root, quality, intervals, and roman numeral + function. It also clarifies the role of the optional key. For a straightforward read-only analysis tool, this is sufficient, though it does not mention error behavior or chord notation specifics, keeping it just short of full completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that 'key' is used to derive roman numeral and function (implying it is optional, as the schema does not require it), but it does not describe the expected format for the chord or key strings. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but leaves significant gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Parse' and a clear resource 'chord', and enumerates the outputs: root, quality, intervals, and roman numeral + function. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_voicing or reharmonize, which imply creation or alteration rather than analysis.

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

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

The description implies usage for chord analysis and mentions that a key is needed for roman numeral/function, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It provides no direct comparison with siblings, so usage guidance is only implied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'voice-leading score', indicating that previousNotes influences the output. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as authentication needs or rate limits.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core purpose and a key parameter usage efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain multiple parameters (style, octave, keyContext) and the nature of the return value. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Only 'previousNotes' is explained (for voice-leading), leaving four other parameters (chord, style, octave, keyContext) completely undefined. The description adds little value beyond the parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it generates an 'instrument-ready voicing in a style', clearly indicating the tool's function. It also mentions using previousNotes for voice-leading, which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_chord or reharmonize. However, it could be more explicit that the output is a voicing (a set of notes) and not a chord symbol.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (analyze_chord, reharmonize, resolve_chord). The only usage hint is 'pass previousNotes for a voice-leading score', which implies a conditional use but does not specify when not to use or what scenarios are appropriate.

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

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

The description adds a list of techniques, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not explain the return format, what 'auto' does, or how the transformation is applied.

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

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

The description is concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a clear, enumerative list for techniques. No redundant or repetitive wording. Every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has moderate complexity, and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema. The description lacks details on return values, progression format, or the meaning of techniques like 'coltrane_changes'. It provides the essential purpose and options but is not comprehensive enough for correct invocation without additional context.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the 'technique' parameter by listing valid values, and 'progression' is implied via the main action. However, the 'key' parameter is entirely undocumented, and the format of 'progression' (e.g., chord symbols) is not specified. Partial compensation but significant gaps remain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reharmonize a progression.' The verb 'reharmonize' is specific and the resource 'progression' is explicit. The list of techniques distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_chord or resolve_chord, making the tool's unique function clear.

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

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

The description implies usage for reharmonizing chord progressions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_chord or generate_voicing. It lists techniques but offers no guidance on choosing between them or when not to use the tool. Context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the output categories (notes, frequencies, MIDI, scales) but no additional behavioral constraints or edge cases. No contradiction with annotations.

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

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It conveys the core action and outputs efficiently, and every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only), and the description covers purpose and output categories. However, it omits input format and output structure, and there is no output schema to compensate. The missing chord-notation detail is a clear gap, making this minimally adequate.

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

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

The input schema defines only a 'chord' string with no description or format. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely says 'a chord' without specifying accepted notation (e.g., 'Cmaj7', 'C major', note list). This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Resolve') with a clear resource ('a chord') and explicitly enumerates the outputs: spelled notes, frequencies, MIDI, and recommended scales. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_chord, generate_voicing, and reharmonize, which have different outputs/purposes.

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

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

The description implies usage—use when you need chord resolution to notes/frequencies/scales—but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, so the guidance is only implicit.

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