Instrument-ready voicing in a style. Tension symbols voice by seat substitution (arranging practice, not stacking): 9/b9/#9 replace the root, #11/13/b13 replace the 5th, the 3rd and 7th are untouched guide tones. Pass voices: 5 to promote the implied 9 of an 11/13 chord; pass previousNotes for a voice-leading score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chord | Yes | ||
| style | No | ||
| octave | No | ||
| voices | No | ||
| keyContext | No | ||
| previousNotes | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by revealing non-obvious behavior: 9/b9/#9 replace the root, #11/13/b13 replace the 5th, and the 3rd/7th remain untouched. This 'seat substitution, not stacking' rule lets an agent predict the tool's output logic without running it.
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 two dense sentences with no filler: it front-loads the purpose, then packs the substitution algorithm and parameter behaviors into compact, readable phrases. Every clause 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?
This is a six-parameter tool with no output schema, no enums, and 0% schema description coverage. The description leaves out the output format, the meaning of 'style', 'octave', and 'keyContext', and any failure or edge-case behavior, so an agent is not fully equipped to call it correctly in all cases.
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 carry parameter meaning. It does clarify 'voices' (5 promotes the implied 9) and 'previousNotes' (for a voice-leading score), and it gives meaning to 'chord' via tension symbols. However, 'style', 'octave', and 'keyContext' remain unexplained in both schema and description.
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 opening phrase 'Instrument-ready voicing in a style' clearly identifies the deliverable and the role of the style parameter. The rest of the description explains what the tool does with tension symbols, which distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_chord or reharmonize, even though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the listed sibling tools. The only usage direction is the conditional 'Pass previousNotes for a voice-leading score,' which is parameter-level advice, not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation—analysis, resolution, voicing, reharmonization, and arrangement—and the descriptions clarify the boundaries well. The closest pair is analyze_chord and resolve_chord, both d chord-input tools, but one yields abstract theory (intervals, roman numerals) while the other yields concrete data (frequencies, MIDI, scales).
The set follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_chord, conduct_band, generate_voicing, resolve_chord. The lone deviation is reharmonize, a single verb with no explicit object, which breaks the pattern slightly but remains perfectly readable.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a distinct facet of harmonic work—analysis, realization, voicing, reharmonization, and arrangement—and none feels like filler.
The surface covers the core chord-intelligence lifecycle: parse, realize, voice, and transform chords, plus full arrangement via conduct_band. Minor gaps exist—there is no progression-analysis tool and no inversion-specific operation—but agents can work around them.