THIRI Chord Intelligence — Music Theory MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context: it parses into components, and notes that roman numeral and function are only provided when a key is supplied. This goes 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?

Single sentence, 16 words, clearly front-loaded. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff. Concise yet informative.

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 lacking output schema, the description enumerates output components (root, quality, intervals, roman numeral, function). This is sufficient for a simple analysis tool. However, additional context about input chord format could enhance completeness. Overall, good coverage given the tool's scope.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'key' is optional and affects output (roman numeral/function). However, it does not specify expected input format for the chord string (e.g., notation like 'Cmaj7'), leaving some 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?

Description specifies the verb 'parse', the resource 'chord', and explicitly lists the outputs (root, quality, intervals, roman numeral, function). This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes 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?

The description implies usage when chord analysis is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No 'when not to use' guidance or mention of sibling tools. The context of sibling names provides some differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidelines.

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?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description says 'Reharmonize' which typically implies mutation. There is no clarification on whether the tool modifies the input or returns a new progression. This creates ambiguity about actual behavior.

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 very concise with a single sentence and a list of techniques. All information is relevant and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on input format, return value, and behavioral side effects, relying too much on annotations which are partly contradictory.

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 covers 0% of parameters in description. The techniques list adds meaning to the 'technique' param beyond the schema, but the 'progression' format and 'key' usage are not explained. The description does not compensate for low schema coverage.

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 reharmonizes a progression and lists specific techniques. It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_chord and generate_voicing by focusing on reharmonization.

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. The techniques list suggests use cases but no when-not scenarios or context for choosing a technique.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the output types but does not elaborate on error handling, input validation, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with key information. 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?

Given the complexity of chord resolution and the absence of output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits input format, output structure details, and limitations, which are essential for correct tool invocation.

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. It only mentions 'a chord' without specifying the expected format (e.g., 'C major', 'Cmaj7'). No details on how the string should be structured, leaving the agent without critical input guidance.

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 to specific outputs (spelled notes, frequencies, MIDI, scales). It uses a specific verb 'resolve' and resource 'chord', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_chord, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 vs alternatives such as analyze_chord or generate_voicing. It does not provide context for appropriate usage or exclusions.

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