THIRI Chord Intelligence — Music Theory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the parsing action but omits details such as what happens on invalid input, whether the operation is safe/read-only, error handling, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 that conveys the core functionality without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the key action and outputs, achieving maximal conciseness.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (music theory knowledge needed), the description is very brief. It lacks details on acceptable chord notation, interval interpretation, harmonic function definition, and return structure. With no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate with additional context, but it does not.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that 'chord' is the symbol to parse and 'key' is optional, affecting roman numeral and function output. However, it does not specify the expected format for the chord string (e.g., 'C#m7'), note spelling conventions, or valid key values. This adds some value beyond the empty schema but is not comprehensive.

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 specifies the tool's function: parsing a chord into root, quality, intervals, and optionally roman numeral with function given a key. It uses a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('chord'), and the outputs are distinctly listed, differentiating it from siblings like 'generate_voicing' or 'reharmonize'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing it over siblings like 'resolve_chord' or 'reharmonize'. The usage context is only implicitly understood from the tool's purpose.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool produces a voicing but does not describe return format, side effects, or permissions. It lacks detail on whether the operation is read-only or modifies state.

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 that immediately states the main purpose and an optional feature. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify what 'instrument-ready' means, how style affects output, or what the return value looks like. The presence of sibling tools heightens the need for more contextual completeness to avoid confusion.

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 should explain parameters beyond their names. Only `previousNotes` receives context (used for voice-leading score). Other parameters like `chord`, `style`, `octave`, and `keyContext` are left without explanation, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 indicates the tool generates an instrument-ready voicing in a style, and mentions optional voice-leading via previousNotes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_chord (analysis) and reharmonize (reharmonization) by focusing on voicing generation. However, the verb 'generate' is implied rather than explicit.

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 alternatives (analyze_chord, reharmonize, resolve_chord). The mention of 'pass previousNotes for a voice-leading score' hints at a specific use case but does not provide selection criteria or exclusions.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that a technique is applied to a progression, but does not specify whether the tool outputs a new progression or modifies the input, nor any side effects, permissions, or constraints beyond the technique list.

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, very concise, and front-loads the core action ('reharmonize a progression'). The techniques are listed efficiently. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 3 parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output (e.g., new progression), how the key parameter affects behavior, or provide usage context. The tool performs a non-trivial operation and needs more detail.

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 missing param documentation. It clarifies that 'progression' is an array of strings and lists allowed 'technique' values, but does not explain 'key' or the fact that 'key' is optional. The meaning of 'technique' is partially covered, but not comprehensively.

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 indicates the tool reharmonizes a chord progression by listing specific techniques. The verb 'reharmonize' and resource 'progression' are specific, and the sibling tools (analyze_chord, generate_voicing, resolve_chord) are distinct in purpose.

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 guidance on when to use reharmonize vs. siblings or which technique to choose. The description implies choosing a technique from the list but does not explain decision criteria or prerequisites (e.g., key requirement).

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but omits details like input format requirements, behavior on invalid input, or output structure. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail on the return structure. It lists outputs but not their format, which is a gap for a single-parameter 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. It implies the 'chord' parameter is a chord name but does not specify accepted formats (e.g., 'C major' vs 'Cmaj7'), leaving ambiguity.

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 resolves a chord into specific outputs: spelled notes, frequencies, MIDI, and recommended scales. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_chord, generate_voicing, and reharmonize.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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