Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Citation-anchored Eurorack module reference: specs, compatibility, and patch techniques.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 4.8/5 across 14 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 4.2/5.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: drawing, compatibility, role finding, manual access, module lookup, provenance, concept lookup, rack analysis, gap reporting, searching, and visualization. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and detailed usage rules prevent ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (draw_patch_diagram, get_module, search_manual). However, rack_redundancy, reachable_pairings, and reachable_techniques deviate as noun or adjective_noun phrases, introducing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools cover the breadth of Eurorack information and interaction needs without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels appropriate for the domain's complexity.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage: module specs, manual search, concept definitions, patch diagrams, technique analysis, compatibility, rack optimization, and visualization. No obvious gaps for typical user questions.

Available Tools

17 tools
draw_patch_diagramPatch DiagramA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Patch diagram tool. Use when the user describes routing across multiple Eurorack corpus modules. Renders modules as boxes laid out by wire topology (matrix-shaped patches anchor on a hub; otherwise modules step left-to-right by signal-flow rank), jacks as colored ports keyed to signal type, wires as bezier curves. Inline SVG on claude.ai surfaces (web, Desktop chat, mobile); JSON elsewhere. (When to offer a diagram unprompted: SKILL.md §4.)

Trigger phrases: "show me the patch", "draw what I just described", "remind me what's connected to what", "explain the routing", or any time you'd otherwise hand-draw a patch in SVG/text — use this instead of drawing.

Strict gate — call only when ALL of:

  1. At least 3 named corpus modules.

  2. Explicit wire connections between them (user-stated or derived from a coherent description).

  3. The patch is concrete — user is following a tutorial, describing their own rack, or referencing back what's connected to what.

Do NOT call for: a single module, a question about one module's jacks, "what should I patch X to?" (that's a recommendation, not a graph), or hypothetical patches with unnamed placeholders ("connect a VCO to a filter").

Jack names. Corpus jack names are descriptive ("V/Oct CV input", "TRIG input", "Strumming trigger input"), not panel-text shorthand ("V/OCT", "TRIG"). The resolver accepts panel-text as a fallback when it unambiguously substring-matches one jack of the right direction (e.g. "TRIG" → "TRIG input"); successful resolutions surface as panel_text_resolved warnings so you can confirm. Ambiguous panel text ("OUT" on a multi-output module) errors with the candidate list. To skip the fallback entirely, call get_modules to discover the exact corpus names up front (one round trip for the whole batch).

Multi-channel modules require a CH prefix. Modules with per-channel jacks (Quadrax, Maths, Tangrams, Stages, Optomix, QMMG, DXG, Pamela's New Workout, Cold Mac, etc.) enumerate each channel separately — e.g. CH1 TRIG, CH2 TRIG, CH3 TRIG, CH4 TRIG on Quadrax. Bare names like "TRIG" on these modules will resolve as ambiguous; always pick a specific channel. When the patch doesn't specify which channel, default to CH1.

Role per use, not per identity. A module that's a modulator in one patch can be a voice in another (Maths slow-cycle vs audio-rate cycle). Pick the role for THIS patch. The enum is intentionally coarse — four buckets, not a taxonomy — so map the edge cases:

  • clock — anything emitting timing: clocks, but also trigger/gate sequencers and drum sequencers (a sequencer is a clock that emits a pattern).

  • modulator — CV/envelope/LFO sources shaping another module (envelopes, LFOs, random, function generators, S&H).

  • voice — anything generating the sound being processed: oscillators, drum voices, noise, sample players, physical-modeling/granular sources.

  • processor — anything acting on an incoming signal: filters, VCAs, effects (delay/reverb), waveshapers, granular/spectral sound-processors, and all utilities (mixers, attenuators, mults, switches). When a module both makes and processes sound, bucket by its job in THIS patch — a granular module sculpting an external input is a processor; running free as a source it's a voice. Role is currently informational — the renderer lays out by wire topology, not by role bucket — but it's still a required field, so declare it accurately for future renderer use and so the spec reads correctly.

notes[] is patch-level prose displayed below the diagram — settings, signal-flow narration ("PNW OUT1 firing 1/16 gates", "Channel 1 cycle mode, long rise").

Errors (descriptive — they point at fixes):

  • "Module not found: "

  • "Unknown jack "" on . Available <inputs|outputs>: ..." — pick from the list, or call get_modules

  • "Ambiguous jack "" on : matches ..." — name a specific jack from the candidates

  • "Patch must have at least 3 modules"

  • "Wire source ... is not an output" / "Wire destination ... is not an input"

  • "Wire to/from unknown module ref: "

  • "Duplicate ref: "

Cross-type wires (e.g. audio into a CV input) render normally with a warning panel below the diagram — Eurorack tolerates type mismatches by design, but warnings catch unintended ones.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoOptional patch-level prose hints displayed below the graph.
wiresYes
modulesYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant context: inline SVG vs JSON based on surface, layout algorithm based on wire topology, jack name resolution with fallback, multi-channel prefix rules, role assignment per patch, and detailed error messages. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections but is quite long. Every sentence provides value, but some details (e.g., full error list, role bucket descriptions) could be slightly condensed without losing clarity. Overall, it balances completeness with usability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (custom domain with modules, jacks, wires, roles, multi-channel, platform differences) and no output schema, the description covers all required aspects: invocation conditions, parameter construction, jack resolution, error handling, return format variation. It is fully self-contained for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It explains how to format wire endpoints ('ref.jack'), how to assign roles with examples (e.g., 'clock' includes trigger/drum sequencers), the requirement for CH<N> prefix on multi-channel modules, and the format for module IDs. This compensates for the 33% schema description coverage and includes nuances not in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Patch diagram tool. Use when the user describes routing across multiple Eurorack corpus modules.' It provides specific trigger phrases (e.g., 'show me the patch') and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only diagramming tool for Eurorack patches.

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?

Explicitly defines when to call with a 'Strict gate' listing three conditions (at least 3 named modules, explicit wires, concrete patch) and when not to call (single module, hypothetical patches). References an alternative (get_modules) for discovering jack names, and gives guidance on unasked offers via SKILL.md.

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

find_compatible_withFind Compatible ModulesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Return modules that have a typed compatibility relationship with the given module. Both edge directions are returned and tagged via the per-match direction field — so a single call answers both "what is X a R for?" and "what is a R for X?".

relationship is OPTIONAL. Omit it to get EVERY edge touching the module across all relationship kinds — the bare "what pairs with / relates to X?" question — with each match self-describing via its own relationship. Pass a relationship to restrict to that one kind. Prefer the relationship-less call when you don't already know which kind exists; reach for the typed form only when the question names a specific role ("what clocks X?").

Use this for two question shapes:

  1. Patch-time compatibility — "what could I use as a clock source for X?" (returns matches with direction='inbound'), or "what does X clock?" (direction='outbound').

  2. Catalog comparison — "what's an alternative to X?" (symmetric), "what does X replace?" (outbound) / "what replaces X?" (inbound), "is there an expander for X?" (inbound).

The vocabulary describes the edge as stored (from = role-bearer, to = target):

Patch-time:

  • clock-source-for — A clocks B

  • cv-source-for — A produces CV that B consumes

  • modulator-for — A is a modulator suitable for B (LFO, S&H, random)

  • audio-source-for — A is an audio source for B (typically a VCO into a VCF)

  • quantizer-for — A quantizes for B

  • trigger-source-for — A produces triggers that B consumes

  • envelope-target-for — A is something B's envelope output is designed to drive Catalog:

  • replaces — A is the newer successor to B (Morphagene replaces Phonogene)

  • alternative-to — symmetric: A and B occupy similar design space with different character

  • expander-for — A is an expander module for the host module B

Direction tag on each match:

  • outbound: queried module is the FROM side (role-bearer). Match is what the queried module does as R.

  • inbound: queried module is the TO side. Match is the R-for the queried module.

  • symmetric: only for alternative-to.

Args:

  • module_id (string, required): "/"

  • relationship (string, optional): one of the values above. Omit for all edges.

  • limit (number): default 50, max 200

Returns: { "module": { id, name }, "relationship": | null, // null when none was passed (all-edges query) "matches": [{ id, name, manufacturer, notes, source_id, direction, relationship }] }

If the module is unknown, returns an error. If no relationships have been recorded in either direction, returns matches=[]. The notes field describes the edge in the canonical A→B direction; combined with direction the caller can read it correctly either way.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
module_idYes
relationshipNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), description details behavior: returns both directions tagged, returns empty array for no relationships, returns error for unknown module, and explains the notes field. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Long but well-structured with labeled sections. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly but remains clear and organized.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given complexity (10 relationship types, directionality), no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description covers return format, error handling, and edge cases completely. No gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully documents each parameter: module_id format, relationship enum values with detailed meanings, and limit constraints (default 50, max 200). Also explains return structure.

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?

Clearly states it returns modules with typed compatibility relationships. Explains both edge directions and distinguishes itself from siblings like find_role_realizations by specifying two use case shapes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool, including two question shapes (patch-time compatibility and catalog comparison). Explains when to omit vs specify the relationship parameter, and contrasts with other tools implicitly.

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

find_role_realizationsFind Role RealizationsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

For a (technique_id, role_id) pair, return modules that can fill the role, ranked by affordance match.

Use this when the user has named a technique and you need to recommend modules for a specific role within it (e.g., "what should I use for the lpg role in a lowpass-gate-pluck patch?"). Optionally pass available_modules to restrict the search to the user's rack — the tool surfaces both documented realizations in the rack AND undocumented candidates whose capability tags match the role's required affordances (or, for roles that declare only optional affordances, those optional ones).

This tool exists to STOP the model from inventing module-role recipes from training-data priors. The output is editorially grounded: documented realizations carry corpus-curated notes; undocumented candidates are explicitly tagged so the agent can weigh confidence.

Args:

  • technique_id (required): kebab-case technique id (see list_techniques).

  • role_id (required): kebab-case role id (e.g., "lpg", "voice", "env", "clock"). See list_techniques → role_definitions for the roles a technique declares.

  • available_modules (optional): array of "/" ids — typically the user's rack. When supplied, restricts results AND surfaces undocumented candidates whose module_capabilities match the role's required affordances — or, for an optional-only role (no required affordances), its optional affordances.

Returns: { "technique_id": "low-pass-gate-pluck", "role_id": "lpg", "role": { "label": "Low-Pass Gate", "description": "Vactrol-style..." }, "role_definition_description": "The vactrol-based or vactrol-emulating element...", "required_affordances": ["lowpass-gate"], "optional_affordances": [], "realizations": [ { "module_id": "make-noise/optomix", "documented": true, "affordances_provided": ["lowpass-gate"], "required_matched": ["lowpass-gate"], "optional_matched": [], "missing_required": [], "fit_score": { "required": 1, "optional": 0 }, "notes": "Two-channel vactrol-based LPG..." }, ... ], "_meta": { "available_modules_filter": null, "documented_count": 19, "candidate_count": 19 } }

Ranking: by required_matched.length desc, then optional_matched.length desc, then module_id asc. A candidate with missing_required.length > 0 is NOT a valid realization but is still returned (sorted last) so the agent can explain why a rack module isn't a fit.

satisfied_via: a rack module can fill a role through a capability-satisfaction edge rather than a literal affordance tag — e.g. a module with an internal low-pass gate (capability internal-lpg) fills the lpg affordance and self-plucks, so it realizes a low-pass-gate-pluck on its own. Such matches carry a satisfied_via:[{ affordance, via, kind }] entry (kind="self-contained" means it fills the role internally, not as an externally-routable instance you patch into) so you can distinguish "this module self-plucks" from "this is an external LPG." Present only on undocumented rack candidates and only for non-literal matches.

Errors:

  • "Technique not found: "

  • "Role not defined for technique: in "

  • Empty realizations[] with a feedback_hint when filters produce no matches.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
role_idYes
technique_idYes
available_modulesNo
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses rich behavioral details beyond the annotations: ranking order (required_matched desc, optional desc, module_id asc), handling of missing_required candidates (still returned but sorted last), the satisfied_via field for non-literal matches, and explicit error messages. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds valuable context without contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with sections for usage, args, return example, ranking, and errors. While it is lengthy, every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy in the return example could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: input constraints, output structure with sample, ranking logic, edge cases (satisfied_via, fit scores, missing_required), error handling, and the meta field. It leaves no ambiguity for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose and format: technique_id (kebab-case from list_techniques), role_id (kebab-case from role_definitions), and available_modules (array of manufacturer/module-slug ids). It also explains how available_modules affects results.

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 explicitly states the core function: for a (technique_id, role_id) pair, return modules that fill the role ranked by affordance match. It uses specific verbs and describes the resource scope, making the purpose clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_techniques or reachable_techniques.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance with an example ("what should I use for the lpg role...") and explains the optional available_modules parameter for restricting to the user's rack. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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

get_manual_chunkFetch Manual ChunkA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Read one manual chunk by id to ground your answer in the manufacturer's documentation — the drill-in partner to get_module's manual_outline. Use it when a claim (voltage range, behavior, calibration step) benefits from the source's own account.

Read the chunk, then answer in your own words and point the user to the source (audit_url) to verify. Paraphrase the substance; do not paste the chunk back as your reply. Quote verbatim only when the exact wording is load-bearing for a specific contested detail, and then only a short phrase. Citation style is SKILL.md §8 (cite-and-point, don't reproduce).

text is capped (~800 chars): enough to ground an answer, not to reproduce the manual. If truncated:true, a " […]" marks the cut and the full passage is at audit_url — send the user there for the rest rather than stitching chunks together to rebuild it.

When to call:

  • You have a chunk_id from get_module's manual_outline that looks relevant to the question.

  • You're writing an answer with specific technical claims and want the source's account to ground (and, if needed, briefly cite) it.

  • The user asked a prose-shaped question ("what does the manual say about X?") — read the chunk, then explain it in your own words with a link to verify.

Prefer get_manual_chunk over search_manual when:

  • You already have the chunk_id from get_module's manual_outline.

  • You want exactly one chunk, not a ranked list.

Returns: { "chunk_id": number, "source_id": number, "source_type": string, // "manual" | "product_page" | "firmware_notes" "source_title": string | null, "heading_path": string | null, // e.g. "Calibration > Tuning Procedure" "text": string, // chunk text, capped ~800 chars; paraphrase, don't paste "truncated": boolean, // true if text was trimmed; full passage at audit_url "audit_url": string // human-readable audit page for the source }

Errors:

  • "Manual chunk not found: " if the chunk_id doesn't exist.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chunk_idYesChunk id from manual_outline[].chunk_id or a search_manual result.
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses text cap (~800 chars), truncated flag behavior, and instructions to paraphrase rather than paste. Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but description adds valuable usage context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-structured with purpose upfront, but somewhat lengthy due to citation style references and detailed instructions. Every sentence earns its place, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Fully covers all aspects: purpose, usage, return structure (including fields not in schema), error handling, and behavioral guidance. No output schema exists, but description effectively substitutes it.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with one integer param. Description adds critical context: chunk_id origin (manual_outline[].chunk_id or search_manual result) and details on return fields like truncated and audit_url, significantly enriching understanding.

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?

Clearly states the tool reads a manual chunk by ID to ground answers in manufacturer documentation. Distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'drill-in partner to get_module's manual_outline' and explicitly preferring it over search_manual when chunk_id is known.

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?

Provides explicit conditions for use: have chunk_id from get_module, making technical claims, or user asks prose question. Also states when not to use (prefer search_manual without chunk_id) and gives clear alternatives.

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

get_moduleLook up moduleA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Return the full citation-anchored specification for one Eurorack module by id.

Use this when the user names a specific module and you want its specs (HP, power, jacks, parameters), capabilities (envelope, quantizer, logic, etc.), or firmware history.

The typed prose fields (jack/parameter/mode descriptions) are paraphrased summaries; manual_outline → get_manual_chunk give the verbatim manual prose to quote against. How much to quote and overall answer shape live in SKILL.md (the "Answer shape" section + §8 citation) — this description is the data contract.

Provenance fields

Every typed row in the response — capabilities[], jacks[], parameters[], modes[], firmware_versions[], plus nested zones/assignments/tracking — carries a source_id pointing at the source the claim was extracted from. Cross-reference list_references(module_id=...) for the source title and canonical_url.

The typed prose fields — jacks[].description, parameters[].behavior, modes[].description, capabilities[].notes, firmware_versions[].notes — are extractor-synthesized summaries grounded in the manual, NOT verbatim quotes. Treat them as the corpus's stated claim about the field; they're authoritative for what the field does, but they are not direct manual text. For verbatim quotation in your answer, always pull the actual prose via get_manual_chunk(chunk_id) — the description fields are the typed claim, not the source quote.

manual_outline[] bundles a lightweight outline of the module's manual prose — one entry per chunk with heading, source, and a ~140-char preview snippet. Always scan it before answering — for prose-shaped questions to find the relevant chunk, for spec-shaped questions to find a chunk to quote alongside the typed data. When a snippet looks relevant, call get_manual_chunk(chunk_id) to pull the full text. manual_outline_total is set ONLY when the outline was truncated for a verbose module; its absence means the returned outline is complete. When set, use search_manual to reach chunks beyond the cap.

Module IDs are slug-shaped: "/". For example:

  • alm-busy-circuits/pamelas-new-workout

  • make-noise/maths

Optional args — trim the payload, target the outline

By default this returns the full spec. For narrow questions you can shrink it:

  • view: "concise" returns just the id-card fields (name, manufacturer, hp, description, capabilities, production_status, replaced_by) and drops the heavy arrays — use it for triage ("which of these is the quantizer?") or when you only need to confirm what a module is. "full" (default) returns everything. Ignored when fields is set.

  • fields: array of top-level keys to include (e.g. ["jacks","parameters"]). id and _meta are always returned. Use this for a quick jacks-only or specs-only read instead of paying for character[]/common_problems[]/role_fitness[]/the full manual_outline. Takes precedence over view.

  • heading_filter: case-insensitive substring on manual_outline heading_path — e.g. "calibration" returns only outline chunks under a Calibration heading, so you skip scanning a long outline.

  • outline_offset / outline_limit: page through manual_outline (default 100 per page, hard max 250). Combined with manual_outline_total this lets you reach chunks past the cap without falling back to search_manual.

Returns:

  • id, name, manufacturer { id, name }

  • hp, depth_mm

  • power: { plus_12, minus_12, plus_5 } (mA)

  • description (manufacturer's prose summary, citation-backed)

  • capabilities[]: functional tags with per-module realization notes (source_id per row)

  • jacks[]: inputs and outputs with voltage range, signal_type, prose description (a paraphrased summary, NOT a verbatim quote — to quote the manual, pull the source prose via get_manual_chunk), plus assignments[] for assignable jacks (destination menu — empty for fixed-function jacks). When mirrors_parameter is set, the jack mirrors that knob's current assignment (e.g. Pizza CTRL CV mirrors the CTRL knob). normalled_from { id, name } is set when this input has a hardware normal — i.e. when unpatched, it receives the signal at the named source jack (e.g. Multigrain GATE normalled from NEXT). null when no normal exists. V/Oct inputs may carry an optional tracking { tracking_range_octaves, tracking_quality, temperature_compensated } object — present only on jacks that have been audited for V/Oct metadata. Fields inside may be null when the source is silent on that aspect. Optional _field_absent: { : { source_id, note } } records fields that were audited and found to be source-silent — read it before hedging: an entry under voltage_min means "the manual doesn't state this" (so a confident "the manual doesn't specify" answer is appropriate); the field being null without an entry means "not yet extracted" (hedge differently — recommend the user check the manual).

  • parameters[]: knobs, switches, menu settings with range, unit, behavior (paraphrased summary, NOT a verbatim quote — same as jacks[].description; quote get_manual_chunk for source text), plus zones[] (labeled regions along the control's travel — e.g. Swells FLOW "Sine" / "Random" halves, optionally mode-scoped) and assignments[] (destination menu for assignable knobs/menu-settings) — both empty arrays for plain controls. Modal-module params may also carry per_mode_notes (rebinding text keyed by mode_id slug, present only when the param rebinds per mode — e.g. Plaits MORPH, Swells EBB/FLOW). Same _field_absent convention as jacks[] — when default_value is null and _field_absent.default_value is present, the manual doesn't state a default.

  • modes[]: mode list for modal modules (Plaits, Swells, MFX) — { id, label, description, behavior_model_id, scope? }. Empty for modeless modules. Mode ids cross-reference parameters[].per_mode_notes keys and parameters[].zones[].mode_id. Optional scope is set when modes are selectable independently per member rather than module-wide — 'per-segment' (Stages hold/ramp/step), 'per-envelope' (Tangrams cycle/single), 'per-output' (PNW), 'per-channel'. Member count is carried by the corresponding enumerated parameters/jacks (e.g. Stages' six Type Button N parameters), not duplicated on the mode rows.

  • hidden_functions[]: functions reached via a trigger other than a single labeled control — { id, trigger_type, affected_control, label, description }. trigger_type is a controlled vocabulary ('long-press' | 'hold' | 'combo' | 'double-press' | 'power-on-hold' | 'held-turn') so recall/menu-diving load is countable; affected_control names the panel control the trigger acts on (null for module-global functions like hold-on-power-up calibration). Empty for modules whose controls are all directly labeled. Read this for "how do I get to X?" / menu-diving questions and when assessing how much hidden state a module carries — the same info used to live buried in parameters[].behavior prose.

  • panel_sections[]: manufacturer-named regions of the front panel (e.g. Multigrain "Dedicated Sound CV inputs" grouping GATE/NEXT/SELECT, "Morph section" grouping the MORPH knob + MORPH CV jack). Each entry has { label, description, members: [{ kind, id, name }] } where members cross-reference jacks[] / parameters[] by id. Empty for modules without manufacturer-named groupings.

  • character[]: curated subjective-character claims (vocal/aggressive/clean/gritty/lush/...) with source citations. Read this when the user asks about sound or feel rather than specs — filter choice for "carve rhythmic transients" or "warm pad voice" hinges on character, which the typed-fields surface can't carry. Each entry: { tag, note (prose elaboration), source_id (when archived in sources), citation_url + citation_quote (when sourced from a review/forum/video we don't archive per-module) }. Empty for modules that haven't been character-audited yet — distinguish "empty array, audit pending" from "no character worth noting." Tags are open-vocab; common starter set: vocal, aggressive, clean, gritty, acidic, lush, dark, bright, smooth, woody, formant, screaming.

  • common_problems[]: curated first-aid lore — repeatable failure modes that owners hit but the manual doesn't cover (calibration drift, hum, screen offset, firmware-flash brick recovery, bus-normalling caveats). Read this when the user asks "anything I should watch out for with X?" or describes a symptom matching a known module quirk. Each entry: { problem_summary (one sentence), cause (prose), fix_or_workaround (prose), confidence ('confirmed' | 'likely' | 'anecdotal'), source_id, citation_url, citation_quote }. Empty array means "no curated problems on file" — agents should NOT extrapolate to "no known problems"; the audit is opt-in per module and most modules have not been touched yet.

  • role_fitness[]: role-realization rollup — canonical techniques whose role_realizations this module fills, with the affordances it brings to that role. Use this when the user wants to know "what roles can this module play?" — e.g. Optomix → lpg role in low-pass-gate-pluck, affordances_provided=[lowpass-gate]. Each entry: { technique_id, technique_label, role_id, role_label, affordances_provided, notes }. Pair with list_techniques(filter={ module_id }) for the full role_definition + sibling realizations, or find_role_realizations(technique_id, role_id) to substitute other modules into the same role.

  • firmware_versions[]: version + release_date (may be partial: YYYY | YYYY-MM | YYYY-MM-DD) + notes (per-version changelog prose when the source provides one — e.g. "Added Smooth Random waveform type. Added Logic parameter (AND/OR/XOR)."). Use this to answer "what changed in v2?" without web search.

  • reference_url: canonical URL of the primary manual on the manufacturer site

  • audit_url: human-readable audit page on the audit site (per-claim citations)

  • production_status: "current" or "discontinued" — flag for recommendation safety

  • replaced_by: { id, name } when the module is discontinued and a successor exists; null otherwise

  • manual_outline[]: lightweight outline of the module's manual chunks — { chunk_id, source_id, source_type, source_title, heading_path, snippet, text_length }. Ordered by (source_id, chunk_index). When the snippet looks worth reading in full, call get_manual_chunk(chunk_id). Empty when no manual prose has been ingested yet for this module.

  • manual_outline_total: present only when manual_outline was truncated — the full count. Hit search_manual to reach the rest.

  • _meta: source_count, last_verified

Errors:

  • "Module not found: " if no module with that id exists.

If the user asks something the manual does not cover (e.g. subjective "is this good for percussion?"), say so explicitly — never confabulate from spec data.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoOptional: "concise" returns the id-card subset (name, manufacturer, hp, description, capabilities, production_status, replaced_by) and drops the heavy arrays — good for triage or multi-module sweeps. "full" (default) returns the complete spec. Ignored when `fields` is set.
fieldsNoOptional: top-level keys to include (e.g. ["jacks","parameters"]) when you only need a slice and want to skip the full payload. Omit for everything. id and _meta are always returned. Takes precedence over `view`. Selectable: manufacturer, name, hp, depth_mm, power, description, capabilities, jacks, parameters, modes, hidden_functions, _field_absent, panel_sections, character, common_problems, role_fitness, firmware_versions, reference_url, audit_url, production_status, replaced_by, manual_outline, manual_outline_total.
module_idYesStable module id, "<manufacturer-id>/<module-slug>" (e.g. "alm-busy-circuits/pamelas-new-workout").
outline_limitNoOptional: max manual_outline entries to return this call (default 100, hard max 250).
heading_filterNoOptional: case-insensitive substring matched against manual_outline heading_path. Narrows the outline to chunks under a heading (e.g. "calibration") so you skip scanning a long outline.
outline_offsetNoOptional: zero-based offset into the (optionally heading-filtered) manual_outline. Page past the default cap instead of falling back to search_manual.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds extensive behavioral context: typed prose fields are paraphrased summaries, not verbatim quotes; provenance fields exist; manual_outline usage; optional parameter behaviors; and error handling. This far exceeds the annotations' coverage.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy but well-structured with sections (Provenance fields, Optional args, Returns, Errors). It front-loads the core purpose. While not extremely concise, every section serves a purpose given the tool's complexity. It could be slightly more terse, but the structure aids readability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, rich output, many siblings), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all return fields, optional arguments, error messages, and provides cross-references to related tools. Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. However, the description adds meaningful context: for view, it explains 'concise' returns an id-card subset; for fields, it explains precedence; for heading_filter, it gives an example. This adds value beyond the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the 'full citation-anchored specification for one Eurorack module by id.' It clearly identifies the resource (Eurorack module) and action (return specification), and distinguishes from siblings like get_manual_chunk and search_manual.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user names a specific module and you want its specs...' It also advises when to use alternatives (e.g., get_manual_chunk for verbatim quotes) and warns against confabulation for subjective questions.

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

get_modulesLook up modulesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Batched get_module — returns { modules: [...], errors: [...] } with full citation-anchored specs for up to 25 modules in one call.

Prefer this over multiple get_module calls when you have a known list of modules to fetch (e.g. preparing to call draw_patch_diagram across N modules, comparing several candidates side-by-side). One round trip vs. N.

Args:

  • module_ids: array of "/" strings. Up to 25 per call; duplicates are deduplicated.

Optional args (apply to every module in the batch, same semantics as get_module):

  • view: "concise" returns the id-card subset (name, manufacturer, hp, description, capabilities, production_status, replaced_by) for every module and drops the heavy arrays — the cheapest way to triage a list ("which of these are LFOs?"). "full" (default) returns complete specs. Ignored when fields is set.

  • fields: top-level keys to include on each module (e.g. ["jacks","parameters"]). id and _meta are always returned. Use this when you only need a slice across N modules (e.g. just jacks for draw_patch_diagram) instead of N full specs.

  • heading_filter / outline_offset / outline_limit: narrow and paginate each module's manual_outline.

Returns:

  • modules[]: GetModuleResponse for each id that resolved (same shape as get_module; narrowed when fields is set).

  • errors[]: { id, message } for each id that failed (e.g. unknown module). Other ids in the batch still resolve.

If you only need a single module, use get_module — same shape, one element. Need only jacks (e.g. for draw_patch_diagram)? Pass fields: ["jacks"] to skip the full specs.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoOptional: "concise" returns the id-card subset for every module in the batch and drops the heavy arrays — cheapest way to triage a list. "full" (default) returns complete specs. Ignored when `fields` is set.
fieldsNoOptional: top-level keys to include on every module in the batch (e.g. ["jacks","parameters"]) when you only need a slice — keeps a multi-module fetch from returning full specs. Omit for everything. id and _meta are always returned. Takes precedence over `view`. Same selectable keys as get_module.
module_idsYes
outline_limitNoOptional: max manual_outline entries per module (default 100, hard max 250).
heading_filterNoOptional: case-insensitive substring matched against manual_outline heading_path, applied to every module in the batch.
outline_offsetNoOptional: zero-based manual_outline offset, applied to every module in the batch.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint; description adds batched deduplication, max 25 limit, error handling for failed IDs, and shared optional args. No contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-organized with sections (summary, usage advice, args, returns, final note). Front-loaded with key info. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be tightened marginally.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Thoroughly covers all 6 parameters, return format including error handling, and gives usage examples. No output schema, so description's return explanation is essential and complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Adds significant meaning beyond schema: explains module_id format, max and deduplication; describes view as triage vs full; fields as slice selector; gives practical examples like 'pass fields: ["jacks"]'. Schema coverage is high (83%), but description still enriches understanding.

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?

Describes itself as 'Batched get_module' returning modules and errors for up to 25 modules, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_module by specifying batch semantics.

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?

Explicitly states when to prefer this tool over multiple get_module calls (e.g., preparing draw_patch_diagram across N modules) and when to use get_module instead (single module needed).

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

get_sourceGet Source MetadataA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Return provenance metadata for one source by integer source_id.

Sources include manufacturer manuals, product pages, firmware notes, schematics, errata, and (in v2) field notes. Source ids are surfaced wherever facts cite their origin — in get_module's reference list, in the audit page citation links, and (in v2) in the claims table.

Args:

  • source_id (integer, required)

Returns metadata only — not the document content. The audit_url field links to the audit site's per-source page where the document can be viewed. The archived_url field is a path on the worker that streams the archived bytes from R2 (e.g. /sources/123/document).

Returns: { "id": number, "source_type": "manual" | "firmware_notes" | "product_page" | ..., "format": "pdf" | "html" | "text" | ..., "title": string | null, "canonical_url": string, // manufacturer-hosted URL "archived_url": string | null, // worker route to the R2-archived copy "content_hash": string | null, // sha256 of archived bytes "fetched_date": string, // when first archived "last_verified": string | null, // when canonical was last confirmed "canonical_changed_at": string | null, // null until manufacturer side changes "module_id": string | null, // owning module, if any "manufacturer_id": string | null, "audit_url": string // audit site page for this source }

The pair (canonical_changed_at, last_verified) is the staleness signal: if canonical_changed_at > last_verified, the manufacturer document changed since we last checked it. Surface that to the user when relevant.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
source_idYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral details: returns metadata only, explains staleness signal via (canonical_changed_at, last_verified), and clarifies audit_url and archived_url. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading purpose. It is detailed but not verbose; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description is highly complete: it explains return fields, staleness signal, and usage context. Despite no output schema, the provided JSON return structure fills the gap.

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?

Only one parameter source_id; schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds context on how source_ids are surfaced, compensating slightly. However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning beyond the schema's integer and minimum constraints.

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 clearly states it returns provenance metadata for one source by integer source_id. It lists what sources include, and the verb 'get' aligns with the name. It distinguishes from siblings like get_module and get_manual_chunk by focusing on source metadata.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when source_ids are surfaced (e.g., in get_module's reference list, audit page citation links) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings. It implies usage context but lacks exclusions.

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

lookup_conceptLook Up ConceptA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Return a canonical definition for a primitive Eurorack / synthesis concept and its relations to other concepts in the corpus.

Use this for VOCABULARY questions, not module questions — when the user is asking what a term means or how two terms relate, not which modules implement it. Typical shapes:

  • "Is four-quadrant mult the same as through-zero AM?" → lookup_concept("four-quadrant mult")

  • "What's the difference between a gate and a trigger?" → lookup_concept("gate")

  • "Modular signal level vs line level — when does it matter?" → lookup_concept("modular signal level")

  • "Are clock dividers just pulse counters?" → lookup_concept("clock divider")

  • "Are polyphonic patch cables TRRRRRS?" → lookup_concept("polyphonic cable")

Lookup is case-insensitive across three axes, tried in order: the canonical id ("through-zero-fm"), the canonical label ("Through-Zero FM (TZFM)"), and any registered alias ("tzfm", "through zero fm"). Spaces and hyphens are matched literally; the lookup does NOT normalize whitespace beyond lowercasing. If the term doesn't match anything, the response includes up to 5 substring-matched suggestions.

Args:

  • name (string, required, min length 2): the term to look up. Examples: "AM", "ring mod", "four-quadrant mult", "TZFM", "clock divider", "gate", "trigger".

Returns: { "concept": { "id": "amplitude-modulation", "label": "Amplitude Modulation (AM)", "description": "A multiplication of two signals: the carrier...", "aliases": ["am", "amplitude modulation", "amplitude mod"], "related_concepts": [ { "related_concept_id": "ring-modulation", "related_concept_label": "Ring Modulation (RM)", "relation_kind": "commonly_confused_with", "note": "AM with a unipolar modulator preserves the carrier..." }, ... ], "source_id": null, "citation_url": "https://learningmodular.com/glossary/...", "citation_quote": "Amplitude modulation is when..." } | null, "_meta": { "query": "", "matched_via": "id" | "label" | "alias" | "none", "concept_suggestions": [ { "id": "...", "label": "...", "matched_via": "alias", "matched_text": "..." } ], "feedback_hint": "...?" } }

Relation kinds:

  • "related_to" — see-also link (default; symmetric in spirit).

  • "subtype_of" — X is a specific case of Y (RM ⊂ AM, TZFM ⊂ linear FM).

  • "inverse_of" — X is the opposite of Y (clock-divider ↔ clock-multiplier).

  • "commonly_confused_with" — they're distinct, but people conflate them (gate vs trigger, AM vs RM, modular level vs line level).

When to cite: every concept carries either source_id or citation_url + citation_quote. Surface the citation when the answer affects a decision (e.g. "the corpus cites learningmodular.com — TRS cables are physically the same connector whether carrying balanced mono or unbalanced stereo; only the destination determines the role").

When the result is null and concept_suggestions are provided, present 2–3 closest matches to the user. If none look right, the corpus genuinely doesn't carry that concept — call report_gap with kind="missing_field" and tool_name="lookup_concept" naming the term and its expected definition.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant detail beyond annotations: case-insensitivity, matching order (id→label→alias), literal matching of spaces/hyphens, substring suggestions, and full return structure with relation kinds. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then technical details. Every sentence adds value. Well-organized into clear sections (examples, matching logic, return structure, relation kinds).

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete for a one-parameter tool with no output schema: explains return object fields, relation kinds, citation usage, and error handling. No gaps remain for effective tool invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has 0% coverage, but description fully compensates: explains case-insensitivity, matching order, provides multiple examples, and specifies minLength. All parameter behavior is thoroughly documented.

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 clearly states it returns canonical definitions for synthesis concepts and distinguishes from module questions with explicit examples. It differentiates well from sibling tools like `get_module` and `search_techniques`.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (vocabulary questions) and when not (module questions), provides typical query shapes, and includes fallback guidance for null results (suggestions or report_gap).

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

rack_redundancyRack Redundancy / What Can I SellA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Call this when the user asks what they can SELL, remove, downsize, or trim — "what can I sell?", "which modules are redundant?", "what's doing double duty?", "I have too many modules, what can go?", "what's not pulling its weight?". The inverse of reachable_techniques: where that adds, this prunes.

Given the user's COMPLETE rack, it runs a leave-one-out over the same technique matcher reachable_techniques uses — for each module, does removing it cost any currently-reachable technique? Returns three buckets plus the overlap map:

  • load_bearing: removing the module drops ≥1 reachable technique → KEEP. sole_filler_for names the techniques it props up.

  • sell_candidates: removing it drops nothing AND another rack module covers the same function → the first place to look. overlaps names the shared function and also_provided_by the other providers.

  • utility_or_uncovered: removing it drops nothing and nothing else does its job — it fills no catalogued technique role (usually a mixer / VCA / I/O / mult) OR serves an idiom the corpus is thin on. Judge by hand; this is NOT "sellable".

  • overlap_map: every function ≥2 of the rack's modules provide (the "you have three reverbs" view) — the evidence behind sell_candidates.

IMPORTANT — this is decision-support, not a verdict, and the limits bite here:

  • cardinality is NOT counted: a 2nd VCA / envelope / mult reads "redundant" though real patches use both at once. Overrule the tool on utilities.

  • only the curated catalog is seen: a module serving an under-covered genre looks redundant when it isn't.

  • two modules covering the same role are BOTH flagged — you can usually drop only one.

  • it cannot weigh sonic character, ergonomics, or sentiment. Trust it most for specialized overlap (e.g. several reverbs); present results as candidates to weigh, never "sell these". Pass the COMPLETE rack — the server is stateless and a partial rack distorts the analysis.

Args:

  • rack (string[], required): module ids, e.g. ["make-noise/maths", "intellijel/quad-vca"]. Max 64. Unknown ids are returned in unresolved (with did-you-mean), not silently dropped.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rackYes
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses beyond annotations: leave-one-out algorithm, three buckets, overlap map, and limitations (cardinality not counted, only curated catalog, etc.). No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-structured: use case first, then algorithm/output, then limitations, then parameter. Front-loaded with key info. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value; could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Covers purpose, algorithm, output buckets, limitations, and parameter details. Without output schema, it explains return concepts well but doesn't give precise response structure. Still fairly complete for a complex tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage, but description fully explains the one parameter: format (module ids, with example), constraints (max 64), and error handling (unresolved with did-you-mean). Adds all necessary semantics.

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?

Description states specific use cases ('what can I sell?', 'which modules are redundant?') and explicitly contrasts with sibling tool reachable_techniques, making purpose clear and distinct.

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?

Explicitly tells when to call (user asks about selling/removing) and gives important caveats: decision-support only, not a verdict, trust most for specialized overlap, pass complete rack. Provides clear context and limitations.

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

reachable_pairingsReachable Pairings for a RackA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Given a rack (a set of module ids the user owns), rank the modules NOT in the rack by how many rack members they pair with. The set-level companion to find_compatible_with: where that answers "what pairs with module X?", this answers "given my whole rack, what single module should I add — the one that pairs with the most of what I already have?".

The ranking signal is pair_count — the number of DISTINCT rack members a candidate pairs with. A module that modulates five of your modules ranks above one that modulates one. This aggregate is the point: you can't get it from per-module find_compatible_with calls without tallying distinct members by hand.

Use this for:

  • "What should I add to a rack with ?" / "what fills out this system?"

  • "Given these modules, what pairs well with the most of them?"

  • Inspecting a rack's own internal pairing structure (the internal edges).

Combination edges only. Ranking uses the seven patch-time relationships (clock-source-for, cv-source-for, modulator-for, audio-source-for, quantizer-for, trigger-source-for, envelope-target-for) — the "A and B work together in a patch" kinds. The substitution/catalog kinds (alternative-to, replaces, expander-for) are deliberately excluded: a pairing recommender shouldn't suggest replacing your modules with each other. For "what's an alternative to X?" use find_compatible_with.

Args:

  • rack (string[], required): module ids, e.g. ["make-noise/maths", "mutable-instruments/plaits"]. Ids that match no module are returned in unknown_ids (and in unresolved with did-you-mean suggestions) rather than failing the call. Surface those rather than proceeding on a partial rack: the server is stateless about your rack — it keeps no memory of it between calls, so pass the COMPLETE current set every call. Max 64.

  • relationship (string, optional): restrict ranking to one combination kind above. Omit to consider all seven.

  • limit (number): default 25, max 100.

Returns: { "rack": [{ id, name }], // the rack members that resolved "unknown_ids": [string], // rack ids that matched no module "internal": [{ from_module_id, to_module_id, relationship, source_id }], // edges within the rack "candidates": [{ id, name, manufacturer, pair_count, "pairings": [{ rack_member, relationship, direction, source_id }] // why it pairs, per member }] }

direction on each pairing is relative to the rack member: 'outbound' = the candidate is the role-bearer (it relationships the member, e.g. the candidate is a modulator-for the member); 'inbound' = the member is the role-bearer.

Coverage caveat: rankings are only as dense as module_relationships. A thin or empty result means the corpus hasn't recorded those edges yet, not that no good pairing exists — call report_gap if you expected matches.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rackYes
limitNo
relationshipNo
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: coverage caveat with suggestion to call report_gap, handling of unknown_ids with did-you-mean, stateless server requirement, and explanation of direction semantics. No contradictions with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false).

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose and ranking signal, then provides use cases, technical details, parameter explanations, and caveats. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the output structure (rack, unknown_ids, internal, candidates), direction semantics, and coverage caveats. Fully compensates for lack of output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: rack format and resolution details, relationship enum with the list of seven combination types, and limit default/max. It adds meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: ranking modules not in the rack by how many rack members they pair with. It uses specific verbs and resources ("rank the modules"), distinguishes it from the sibling find_compatible_with, and explains the ranking signal (pair_count).

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool (e.g., 'What should I add to a rack?') and when not to (for alternatives, use find_compatible_with). It provides clear context on the ranking signal and the deliberate exclusion of substitution relationships.

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

reachable_techniquesReachable Techniques for a RackA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Given a rack (the module ids the user owns), return which canonical patch techniques the rack can realize, and which it is one module away from. The set-level companion to find_role_realizations: where that answers "which module fills role R in technique T?", this answers the rack owner's actual question — "given everything I own, what can I actually do, and what am I close to?".

This is the right tool the moment a user gives you their modules and asks an open "what can I do / what can this rack do / what am I missing?" question — instead of guessing techniques from training priors or calling find_role_realizations technique-by-technique by hand. It runs the affordance match across the whole technique catalog for you.

Returns two buckets:

  • reachable: every required role has a rack module that fills it. Each carries an assignment (role → module). requires_shared_module: true flags a technique only reachable by reusing one module for two roles — verify those roles can share one instance.

  • near_misses: all-but-one role fillable; missing_roles names the unfilled role(s) and the required_affordances you'd need. This is the acquisition signal — "you can already do X; you're one module away from Y".

Args:

  • rack (string[], required): module ids, e.g. ["make-noise/maths", "mutable-instruments/plaits"]. Max 64. Ids that match no module are returned in unresolved (with did-you-mean), not silently dropped.

  • limit (number): max techniques per bucket. Default 25, max 100.

Stateless-rack contract: the server keeps no memory of your rack between calls — pass the COMPLETE current rack every call. A partial rack silently narrows what's reported reachable, so if a module id doesn't resolve, surface the unresolved did-you-mean to the user rather than proceeding on the incomplete set.

Scope: reachability is role-PRESENCE based. It does NOT verify per-role instance counts (cardinality) — a technique needing two independent envelopes is judged reachable if you have one envelope source. The distinct-instance question (can one module fill two roles?) is surfaced as requires_shared_module, not silently assumed. For the editorial detail on a specific technique (canonical instance, counter-canonical notes, full realization list), call list_techniques; for one role's candidates, find_role_realizations. To go the other way — which of your modules are redundant / safe to sell — call rack_redundancy.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rackYes
limitNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), it discloses the stateless-rack contract (must pass complete rack every call), the handling of unresolved modules with did-you-mean, the meaning of requires_shared_module, and the cardinality limitation (role-presence only, not instance counts). No annotation contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, return buckets, parameters, stateless contract, caveats, and sibling links. It is thorough but could potentially be slightly more terse without losing meaning. Still very effective.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description fully details inputs, outputs (reachable and near_misses with key fields), behavioral caveats (shared module, cardinality), stateless requirement, and how to extend with sibling tools. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full burden. It explains rack as module ids (string array, max 64, with example), explains limit (default 25, max 100), and adds that unresolved ids are returned not silently dropped. This adds critical meaning beyond the 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 it returns which canonical patch techniques a rack can realize and which it is one module away from. It clearly distinguishes from sibling find_role_realizations by calling itself 'the set-level companion' and noting it answers the user's open-ended question rather than requiring technique-by-technique calls.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: when a user asks 'what can I do / what can this rack do / what am I missing?' and provides alternatives: for editorial detail use list_techniques, for one role's candidates use find_role_realizations, for redundant modules use rack_redundancy. Also warns against guessing from priors or manual iteration.

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

report_gapReport a Data or Tool GapAInspect

Report when this MCP server couldn't fully answer a question. Not a query tool — calling this writes a feedback record.

Call this proactively — without being asked — whenever you hit one of:

  • missing_field: a field you expected on a module wasn't present (e.g. "I needed the LFO frequency range on Pamela's New Workout and parameter_zones didn't have it").

  • missing_module: a module the user asked about isn't in the corpus yet.

  • tool_confusion: a tool's behavior surprised you (wrong shape, missing filter, ambiguous enum value, unclear description).

  • empty_result: a reasonable query came back empty and you suspect the corpus is incomplete rather than the query being wrong.

  • other: anything else worth flagging that doesn't fit above.

  • eval_finding: reserved for the eval harness at evals/mcp/. Don't use this as an agent — it's written by harvest.py --push when a rubric catches a behavior the agent didn't self-report (e.g., a model leaking prior knowledge after acknowledging a corpus gap).

Be specific. Vague reports ("data could be better") are useless; actionable reports name the field, module, or tool. Reporting is encouraged — there is no rate limit and no judgment for over-reporting; a noisy log is more useful than a silent one.

Args:

  • kind (required): one of missing_field | missing_module | tool_confusion | empty_result | other (eval_finding is reserved for the eval harness)

  • module_id: module this was about, if any ("/"). For missing_module, use the id the user asked about even if it doesn't exist.

  • tool_name: tool that fell short (or that you'd want to exist).

  • expected (required, ≤200 chars): what you were trying to find or do.

  • observed (required, ≤500 chars): what actually happened.

  • suggestion (≤300 chars): concrete fix you'd propose ("add a release_curve field to parameters", "ingest mutable-instruments/yarns").

Returns: { acknowledged: true, id: number }

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
expectedYes
observedYes
module_idNo
tool_nameNo
suggestionNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations set destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a write operation with no destructive side effects. The description adds useful context: reporting is encouraged, no rate limit, no judgment, and the return value format. It does not contradict annotations. A slight gap is not mentioning how reports are processed, but overall transparency is good.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Bullet points and subsections improve readability. While efficient, some sentences could be tightened (e.g., the eval_finding note could be shorter). Overall, each sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given 6 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and low complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: usage triggers, parameter meanings, enum choices, and return value format. It even provides examples for 'missing_field'. The description is fully complete 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.

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter. The enum values for 'kind' are detailed with usage examples. Other parameters like 'module_id', 'tool_name', 'expected', 'observed', and 'suggestion' are described with context, though the description could be more structured for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool is for reporting when the MCP server couldn't fully answer a question. It uses specific verb 'Report' and resource 'Data or Tool Gap', and distinguishes itself from query tools by stating 'Not a query tool — calling this writes a feedback record.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_modules.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by listing proactive scenarios (missing_field, missing_module, etc.) and when not to use (eval_finding reserved for eval harness). It also advises on specificity and encourages reporting without rate limit, giving clear context for use versus alternatives.

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

resolve_modulesResolve Module Names to IDsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Bulk fuzzy name → id resolver. Pass a list of module NAMES (the way a user writes their rack — "Maths", "Plaits", "Pamela's New Workout", "Morph 4") and get back, per name, the best-matching corpus module id plus recovery affordances. This is the "import my rack" tool: resolving a 60-module inventory is ONE call here, not 60 search_modules calls.

Use this the moment a user gives you a list of module names to map onto the corpus — before get_modules / draw_patch_diagram / reachable_techniques / rack_redundancy, all of which want ids. Feed the resolved best_match.id into those.

For each input name it runs the same resolution search_modules uses (exact id, unique-slug recovery, module_aliases, separator-fold, token-AND, and edit-distance + multi-token fuzzy "did you mean"), then returns:

  • best_match: the single resolved module ({ id, name, manufacturer, hp, capabilities, production_status }), or null when nothing resolved confidently.

  • score: confidence 0..1 (1.0 exact id, ~0.97 unique slug / alias, ~0.9 literal name hit, ~0.72 token-AND relaxed, 0 when best_match is null).

  • match_kind: "id" | "slug" | "exact" | "relaxed" | "ambiguous" | "fuzzy" | "none".

  • did_you_mean: up to 5 fuzzy neighbours to confirm — populated when best_match is null (a near-miss like "morf 4" → joranalogue/morph-4, or "tiny time machin" → oam/tiny-time-machine).

  • ambiguous: up to 5 candidates when several modules tied for the match and the server declined to pick (e.g. a slug shared across manufacturers). Present them to the user; do NOT silently take the first.

The server AUTO-RESOLVES a confident single match but never guesses through a genuine tie — that's the ambiguous bucket. A name with best_match=null AND empty did_you_mean/ambiguous is a real corpus gap: consider report_gap(kind="missing_module").

Args:

  • names (string[], required): module names or ids, up to 100. Order and duplicates are preserved in the response.

Returns: { "resolutions": [ { "input": "Pamela's New Workout", "best_match": { "id": "alm-busy-circuits/pamelas-new-workout", "name": "Pamela's NEW Workout", "manufacturer": "ALM Busy Circuits", "hp": 8, "capabilities": [...], "production_status": "current" }, "score": 0.9, "match_kind": "exact", "did_you_mean": [], "ambiguous": [] }, ... ], "_meta": { "requested": 3, "resolved": 2, "feedback_hint"?: "..." } }

Errors:

  • Throws only on a malformed call (missing/empty names array, or > 100 names). Unresolved individual names are NOT errors — they come back with best_match=null and the recovery fields.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namesYesModule names (or ids) to resolve, up to 100. Order and duplicates preserved.
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) by detailing the matching algorithm (exact id, slug recovery, aliases, token-AND, edit-distance), the return structure for each input (best_match, score, match_kind, did_you_mean, ambiguous), and error handling (only malformed calls throw, unresolved names are not errors). It also explains the auto-resolution policy and the ambiguous bucket handling.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose and usage in the first paragraph, matching algorithm details, return field explanations, and then Args/Returns/Errors. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the most important usage guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (fuzzy matching, multiple resolution outcomes, ties, errors), the description covers all necessary behavioral and contextual details. It explains return fields thoroughly, including the tricky ambiguous and did_you_mean cases, and how to handle null best_match. There is no output schema, so the detailed exposition is essential and fully provided.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single parameter 'names' is fully documented in the schema (type, required, description, constraints on length and count). The description adds context: 'module names (or ids)', 'up to 100', 'Order and duplicates preserved', and concrete examples like 'Maths'. This adds value beyond the schema but is not essential for understanding, giving a 4.

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 explicitly states it is a 'Bulk fuzzy name → id resolver' and frames it as the 'import my rack' tool, distinguishing it from search_modules by noting that resolving a 60-module inventory is one call instead of 60. The verb-resource relationship is clear and specific.

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?

The description directly instructs when to use this tool: 'the moment a user gives you a list of module names to map onto the corpus — before get_modules / draw_patch_diagram / reachable_techniques / rack_redundancy, all of which want ids.' It also specifies feeding the resolved best_match.id into those tools and mentions the alternative report_gap for real corpus gaps.

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

search_manualSearch Module ManualsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Full-text search across parsed module manuals, product pages, and firmware release notes.

Use this only when the question is about content that lives in continuous prose rather than in typed fields:

  • Procedural: calibration sequences, button combos, factory-reset steps, save/load procedures.

  • Diagnostic: LED color meanings, error indicators, troubleshooting trees.

  • Firmware specifics beyond the short notes on firmware_versions (which only carry the headline change).

  • Panel walkthroughs and prose explanations that aren't captured as parameters/jacks/zones.

Do NOT call this for content already in get_module: a parameter's behavior, a jack's signal type or polarity, a mode's name or description, capability tags, HP, or power draw. Those are typed and authoritative there.

Do NOT call this to summarize a module — that's get_module's job. search_manual returns excerpts, not summaries.

Returned chunks are source prose, not typed facts. Read them to ground your answer, then paraphrase and point the user to the source to verify (cite-and-point, not reproduce — SKILL.md §8). text is capped (~800 chars); the full passage is at audit_url.

Args:

  • query (string, required): search terms. Plain words are AND'd by default ("calibration LED" matches chunks mentioning both). If the AND match returns 0 rows, the server retries with OR (any-token match) and sets _meta.relaxed_to_or=true on the response — so a long natural-language query like "cascade mode time inner outer delay" still surfaces something useful instead of zeroing out. Best practice is still 2–4 distinctive keywords; the OR fallback is a safety net, not a substitute. Query is tokenized to alphanumeric runs; FTS5 punctuation is stripped.

  • module_id (string, optional): "/" — restrict to one module. Strongly recommended when the user has named a module.

  • source_id (integer, optional): restrict to one source. Use when you already have a source_id from get_source / list_references and want to dig into that specific document.

  • source_type (string, optional): one of "manual", "product_page", "firmware_notes". Defaults to all.

  • limit (integer, optional): default 5, max 20. Smaller is usually better — top-3 hits cover most queries.

Returns: { "query": string, "matches": [{ "chunk_id": number, "source_id": number, "source_type": string, "source_title": string | null, "module_id": string | null, "heading_path": string, // "Calibration > Tuning Procedure" "snippet": string, // BM25-highlighted excerpt with [matches] in brackets "text": string, // chunk text, capped ~800 chars; paraphrase, don't paste "truncated": boolean, // true if text was trimmed; full passage at audit_url "audit_url": string, // human-readable audit page for the source "rank": number // BM25 score (more negative = better match) }], "total": number, // total matches across the corpus (capped at 200) "_meta": { "kind": "manual_excerpt", "query": , "relaxed_to_or": true // only present when AND returned 0 and OR retry fired } }

Examples:

  • "How do I calibrate Plaits' V/Oct?" → { query: "calibration V/Oct", module_id: "mutable-instruments/plaits" }

  • "What does the red LED on Marbles mean?" → { query: "red LED", module_id: "mutable-instruments/marbles" }

  • "How do I reset Pamela's New Workout to defaults?" → { query: "factory reset defaults", module_id: "alm-busy-circuits/pamelas-new-workout" }

  • "What changed in Plaits firmware 1.2?" → { query: "1.2", module_id: "mutable-instruments/plaits", source_type: "firmware_notes" }

Errors:

  • Returns matches=[] with total=0 if nothing matches. Not an error.

  • Errors only on malformed input (missing query, invalid limit, unknown source_type).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYesSearch terms.
module_idNo
source_idNo
source_typeNo
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds query behavior (AND/OR fallback, tokenization), result structure (excerpts not summaries, truncation, audit_url), and error handling. Significantly enriches beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-organized with sections, front-loaded purpose, and examples. Every sentence adds value, but slightly verbose given the complexity. Still efficient for the level of detail needed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Complete guidance for selection and invocation: parameter usage, behavioral details, examples, error cases. No output schema, but return object fully documented. Context signals (5 params, low schema coverage) are fully addressed.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 20% (only query has description). Description compensates fully: explains query AND/OR logic, tokenization, best practice; module_id format; source_type enum; limit defaults; and detailed return object fields. Adds meaning far beyond 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 clearly states 'Full-text search across parsed module manuals, product pages, and firmware release notes' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_module (structured data) and search_modules (likely module names).

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?

Explicit when-to-use criteria for procedural, diagnostic, firmware, and prose content. Clear exclusions: 'Do NOT call this for content already in get_module' and 'Do NOT call this to summarize a module'. Provides detailed use vs. alternative guidance.

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

search_modulesSearch Eurorack ModulesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Search the corpus for Eurorack modules matching a combination of filters.

Filters compose with AND. Omit any filter to leave that dimension unrestricted. The result is sorted by module name; pagination metadata in the response envelope lets you page through long result sets.

Args:

  • capability (string): capability id, e.g. 'envelope-generator', 'clock-source'. Run a search with NO capability filter to get the full capability taxonomy (ids + labels + counts) in _meta.taxonomy. Retired/variant slugs resolve via the capability_aliases layer (e.g. 'low-pass-gate' → 'lowpass-gate', 'quantiser' → 'quantizer'), so either form is accepted.

  • manufacturer (string): manufacturer id, e.g. 'make-noise', 'mutable-instruments'.

  • hp_min, hp_max (number): module width in HP. hp_max=10 finds modules ≤ 10 HP.

  • signal_type_in (string): the module accepts a jack of this signal type as input. One of audio, cv, gate, trigger, clock, mixed. signal_type_in='audio' and ='cv' both also match jacks tagged 'mixed' (the schema's value for jacks the source describes as accepting both audio and CV — e.g. Joranalogue Compare 2's signal inputs); the other values match literally.

  • signal_type_out (string): the module produces a jack of this signal type as output. Same 'mixed'-superset semantics as signal_type_in.

  • text (string): free-text match against module id, name, slug, description, and the ids/labels/descriptions of capabilities the module has (case-insensitive substring). Matches hyphenated forms like "filter-8" against the slug/id even when the display name uses a space ("Filter 8"), and is whitespace-insensitive on id/slug/name so "3x MIA" finds the module named "3xMIA". Capability-label coverage means text="multiband" finds modules tagged multiband-filter without knowing the kebab-case id, and a curated alias layer extends that to common word-form variants ("multi-output" / "multi-band" / "band-split" → multiband-filter, "low-pass" → lowpass-filter, retired ids like "voltage-controlled-filter" → vcf). Truly novel wording still requires the _meta.taxonomy overview (run a no-capability search); if you expected a hit and got 0, call report_gap so the alias can be added.

  • voct_tracking_range_min (number): the module has a V/Oct input whose source-stated tracking range is at least this many octaves. Use for "filters that track 5+ octaves" / "oscillators with wide V/Oct range".

  • voct_tracking_quality (string): the module has a V/Oct input with this tracking quality, one of 'calibrated', 'temperature-compensated', 'approximate', 'uncalibrated'. 'temperature-compensated' is the strongest claim.

  • voct_temperature_compensated (boolean): the module has a V/Oct input whose source explicitly states temperature compensation. Implies calibrated but separately flagged because some manuals call out only one.

  • audio_outputs_min (number): the module has at least this many output jacks with signal_type='audio'. Use for "multi-output filters" (≥3 audio outs surfaces LP/BP/HP-tap VCFs like Three Sisters, QPAS, A-108, Polaris) or any multi-tap audio module. Combine with capability='vcf' for the canonical multi-output-filter query.

  • limit (number): default 50, max 200.

  • offset (number): pagination offset.

Returns: { "modules": [{ id, name, manufacturer, hp, capabilities: [string], description, production_status }], "total": number, // total matches (across all pages) "_meta": { "query": , // Present whenever a 'capability' filter matched >=1 module (NOT gated on // total=0 — it accompanies normal results). The category-coverage // denominator, so a "best X" recommendation can self-caveat instead of // reading as "best available": // On a no-capability search: the global capability taxonomy (id, label, // description, module_count) — discover the controlled vocabulary here // instead of a separate list_capabilities call. "taxonomy": [{ "id": "lowpass-gate", "label": "Low-pass gate", "module_count": 19 }], "coverage": { "capability": "stereo-mixer", // the capability you filtered on "category_total": 9, // modules in the corpus with this capability, IGNORING your other filters "corpus_total": 388, // all modules in the corpus "note": "...best of 9 in the corpus, not best available..." // ready-to-use recommendation caveat }, // Present when the server's token-AND fallback rescued an otherwise-empty // phrase query (e.g. "pamela workout" → "Pamela's NEW Workout" via per-word // identifier match). Not an error; just signals that results came from the // relaxed pass rather than the literal phrase. "relaxed_to_tokens": true, // On total=0 (after the token-AND fallback has already been attempted), the // server adds these diagnostic hints so you can retry productively in one // turn instead of guessing variants. Each is independently optional: "would_match_without": ["capability", "text"], // filters that, if individually dropped, would yield ≥1 result — the named filter(s) cost you the match "closest_text_hits": [{ id, name, manufacturer }], // top 3 modules matching 'text' alone (other filters dropped); inspect for a close hit you filtered out by accident "did_you_mean": [{ id, name, manufacturer }], // top 3 edit-distance neighbors of 'text' when it matched nothing literally (a single-token typo like "multgrain" → multigrain); PRESENT means retry with the suggested id, ABSENT means the term is a genuine corpus gap (call report_gap) — the discriminator would_match_without can't give you "capability_suggestions": [{ id, label }], // top 3 valid capabilities matching the 'capability' arg you passed (only set when the arg wasn't a known slug or alias) — use list_capabilities for the full taxonomy "manufacturer_suggestions": [{ id, name }], // top 3 maker slugs matching the 'manufacturer' arg (only set when it wasn't a canonical slug) — the manufacturer arg is EXACT-match, so e.g. "addac" → "addac-system", "nonlinearcircuits" → "nlc"; retry with the suggested id "feedback_hint": "..." // fallback prompt to call report_gap when no other diagnostic applies } }

Examples:

  • "What envelope generators under 8 HP exist?" → {capability: 'envelope-generator', hp_max: 8}

  • "What ALM modules are in the corpus?" → {manufacturer: 'alm-busy-circuits'}

  • "What clock sources are there?" → {signal_type_out: 'clock'}

  • "Modules with 'workout' in the name" → {text: 'workout'}

  • "Filters that track V/Oct over 5 octaves" → {capability: 'vcf', voct_tracking_range_min: 5}

  • "Temperature-compensated filter cores" → {voct_tracking_quality: 'temperature-compensated'}

  • "Multi-output filters with LP/BP/HP taps" → {capability: 'vcf', audio_outputs_min: 3}

Errors:

  • Returns an empty modules array (and total=0) if nothing matches. Not an error — inspect _meta.would_match_without / closest_text_hits / capability_suggestions / manufacturer_suggestions to decide whether to broaden the query or call report_gap.

  • Invalid filter values pass through to the WHERE clause; if no module satisfies them you get total=0.

After picking a hit, call get_module with the id for full details.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNo
limitNo
hp_maxNo
hp_minNo
offsetNo
capabilityNoCapability id (kebab-case).
manufacturerNoManufacturer id.
signal_type_inNo
signal_type_outNo
audio_outputs_minNo
voct_tracking_qualityNo
voct_tracking_range_minNo
voct_temperature_compensatedNo
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds detailed behavioral context: sorting by name, pagination, response envelope with _meta, error diagnostics (would_match_without, closest_text_hits, suggestions), and no contradictions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Errors) and front-loaded purpose. However, it is very long; some repetition could be trimmed. The length is largely justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's 13 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and high complexity, the description covers all aspects: parameter semantics, response format, error handling with actionable diagnostics, and integration with sibling tools (report_gap, get_module). Nothing is left ambiguous.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 15%, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter in detail: string matching rules for text, HP bounds, signal type supersets (audio/CV matching mixed), voct tracking semantics, audio_outputs_min usage, and pagination parameters. Provides concrete examples and edge cases.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'Eurorack modules', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_module (single module) and search_manual (manual text). The scope and purpose are unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on filter composition (AND logic), when to omit filters, and when to use alternative tools (e.g., running a search with no capability filter to get taxonomy instead of list_capabilities, and calling report_gap for unexpected zero results). Examples cover common use cases.

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

search_techniquesSearch Patch TechniquesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Return canonical synthesis / patching techniques with role-keyed module realizations drawn from the corpus.

Use this when the user asks "how do I do X?" with X being a recognisable technique (low-pass-gate plucks, pinged-filter percussion, parallel multiband processing, complex-oscillator FM, karplus-strong pluck, clocked-delay feedback, modal-resonator excitation, wavefolder harmonics, envelope-follower ducking, Maths-style function-generator omnibus). It's also the right tool when the user has a module and asks "what's this good for?" — pass filter.module_id to retrieve every technique that references the module via its role_realizations.

Each technique declares role_definitions (the roles the technique uses, each with required and optional affordances) and role_realizations (concrete modules that fill each role, with the affordances they provide). The model substitutes modules from the user's rack into roles by affordance match — DO NOT treat the realization list as exhaustive or as a recipe.

Args:

  • filter (optional): { capability?, module_id?, text? }

    • capability: kebab-case capability id (see search_modules _meta.taxonomy). Returns techniques whose required or optional capability list includes this id.

    • module_id: "/". Returns techniques that have a role_realization referencing this module.

    • text: free-text phrase. Substring-matches against technique id/label/description AND a curated alias table (technique_aliases) — that's the right surface when a user types evocative prose like "stuttering delay", "plucked string", "source of uncertainty" that doesn't grep against any kebab-case id. Two-way alias match: long alias ("source of uncertainty") matches short query ("uncertainty"), and vice versa.

    • When multiple filters supplied, AND-intersects.

    • Omit filter entirely to list all techniques.

Returns: { "techniques": [ { "id": "low-pass-gate-pluck", "label": "Low-Pass Gate Pluck", "description": "Send a short envelope...", "required_capabilities": ["lowpass-gate"], "optional_capabilities": ["envelope-generator", "function-generator"], "role_definitions": [ { "role_id": "lpg", "description": "The vactrol-based or vactrol-emulating element. Strictly required...", "required_affordances": ["lowpass-gate"], "optional_affordances": [] }, ... ], "role_realizations": [ { "role_id": "lpg", "module_id": "make-noise/optomix", "affordances_provided": ["lowpass-gate"], "notes": "Two-channel vactrol-based LPG..." }, ... ], "canonical_instance": { "rationale": "...", "lineage": [ { "position": 1, "label": "Buchla 292 (1970)", "module_id": null, "notes": "..." }, { "position": 2, "label": "Tiptop Audio Buchla 292t", "module_id": "tiptop-audio/buchla-292t" }, ... ] }, "counter_canonical_notes": [ { "claim_pushed_back_against": "Optomix is the canonical pairing with Plaits...", "evidence": "The corpus catalogs 19 LPG-capable modules..." } ], "coverage": [ { "role_id": "voice", "realizations_count": 3 }, { "role_id": "lpg", "realizations_count": 19 }, { "role_id": "env", "realizations_count": 6 }, { "role_id": "clock", "realizations_count": 2 } ] } ], "_meta": { "filter": {...}, "feedback_hint"?: string } }

How to use role data:

  • role_realizations are CURATORIAL SAMPLES, not exhaustive lists. The coverage[].realizations_count tells you how many are documented; other modules may fill the same role.

  • To find modules in the user's rack that can fill a role, use find_role_realizations(technique_id, role_id, available_modules).

  • canonical_instance is opt-in and sparse. Most techniques don't have one; that absence is information. When present, it documents a documented historical lineage (e.g., Buchla 292 → 292t → MMG → Optomix for low-pass-gate-pluck) — NOT a prescription.

  • counter_canonical_notes push back on likely training-data priors. When the user invokes a canonical-sounding claim that has a counter_canonical_note, surface the pushback.

Errors:

  • "Module not found: " if filter.module_id is supplied and unknown.

  • Empty techniques[] with a feedback_hint when filters produce no matches — call report_gap if the user expected coverage.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNo
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a search operation. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the curatorial nature of role_realizations, the sparsity of canonical_instance, the presence of counter_canonical_notes, and how filters work (AND-intersect, alias matching). This provides rich behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with paragraphs, bullet points, and a code block for the return type. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and example use cases. However, it is lengthy; some sections (e.g., detailed role_definitions explanation) could be more concise, though the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has no output schema, but the description provides a comprehensive explanation of the return value structure (techniques array with fields like role_definitions, role_realizations, canonical_instance, coverage). It also explains how to use role data (curatorial samples, coverage counts) and error handling (module not found, empty results with feedback_hint). The description is nearly exhaustive for this complex tool, leaving no major gaps.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides field names and types), the description adds extensive meaning to the single parameter 'filter'. It explains each sub-property (capability, module_id, text) with detailed semantics, including format, behavior, and interaction (AND-intersect when multiple filters supplied). The description fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'canonical synthesis / patching techniques with role-keyed module realizations'. It distinguishes from siblings like search_modules and find_role_realizations by specifying use cases such as 'how do I do X?' or 'what's this good for?'. The verb 'return' and resource 'techniques' are specific, and the sibling differentiation is explicit.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user asks 'how do I do X?' with a recognizable technique, or when a user has a module and asks 'what's this good for?'. It also provides guidance on what not to do ('DO NOT treat the realization list as exhaustive or as a recipe') and mentions error handling (module not found, empty results with feedback_hint). The guidance is thorough and actionable.

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

visualize_moduleVisualize moduleA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Module visualization tool. Use when the user wants to understand how a module's modes work, how parameters change between modes, or what a specific mode does — a visualization communicates the per-mode behavior better than prose. The host renders the result inline in the chat as an interactive visualization (mode buttons, per-mode descriptions, schematic curves); you do not need to build an artifact yourself — just call this tool.

Do not use for general module specs (HP, jacks, capabilities) — call get_module instead.

After calling, your prose can reference what the user is seeing in the visualization (e.g. "in formant mode, all three outputs become bandpass filters") rather than describing the visualization itself.

Currently supported viz families:

  • filter_response — filters with characterized response curves (e.g. Three Sisters, Ripples, Belgrad, A-124, Filter 8, QPAS, SVF 1U, Cinnamon, C4RBN, Ikarie)

  • oscillator_morph — multi-mode oscillators and excited resonators (e.g. Rings, Loquelic Iteritas, Plaits)

A module is supported when every one of its modes has a behavior_model_id the renderer knows. If you're unsure whether a given module qualifies, just call this tool — the error names the gap.

Errors:

  • "Module not found: " if no module with that id exists.

  • "Module not yet supported by visualize_module: " when one or more modes lack a renderer-known behavior_model_id, or when the module mixes incompatible viz families. Suggest get_module for the underlying spec.

The returned spec is a JSON object with: module_id, module_name, manufacturer, viz_type, params[], modes[], response_model_id, presets[]. Each mode has a behavior_model_id that the renderer uses to pick the curve set (e.g. crossover_lp_bp_hp vs formant_three_bp for filter_response).

response_model_id (top-level) vs per-mode behavior_model_id: for multi-mode modules the top-level field is intentionally null — each mode carries its own behavior_model_id since the modes use different curve sets (e.g. Three Sisters' crossover vs formant). Read the per-mode values from modes[].behavior_model_id. The top-level is populated only for single-curve modules where one model applies across the whole module. null at top-level + populated per-mode = "modes carry distinct models," not a bug.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
module_idYesStable module id, "<manufacturer-id>/<module-slug>" (e.g. "whimsical-raps/three-sisters").
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the result is rendered inline as an interactive visualization and that the caller does not need to build an artifact. It also explains error conditions. This adds useful context beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured with front-loaded usage guidance. It includes examples and error explanations without being overly verbose. Some redundancy in error listing, but generally concise.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple input schema (one required parameter), annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains the return spec (module_id, modes, behavior_model_id, etc.) and clarifies the relationship between response_model_id and per-mode behavior_model_id. No gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The single parameter module_id has schema coverage 100%, but the description provides a concrete example (whimsical-raps/three-sisters) and clarifies the format. This adds value beyond the schema description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: visualizing how a module's modes work, parameter changes, and per-mode behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like get_module and draw_patch_diagram by specifying when to use this tool instead.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use (user wants to understand modes/parameters) and when not to use (general specs, use get_module). It also advises calling the tool even if unsure, as errors will clarify the gap.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources