Skip to main content
Glama

Find Role Realizations

find_role_realizations
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
role_idYes
technique_idYes
available_modulesNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses the ranking order, the behavior of returning invalid candidates with missing_required, the satisfied_via mechanism for non-literal matches, and exact error messages. This gives the agent a detailed behavioral contract.

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 long yet tightly organized with a summary line, usage triggers, args, return shape, ranking, satisfied_via, and errors. No sentence is redundant; each adds distinct operational detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies a complete return object example, defines the ranking algorithm, explains edge cases (missing_required, satisfied_via), lists error strings, and describes behavior when filters produce no matches. It fully equips the agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully: it defines technique_id as kebab-case with a pointer to list_techniques, role_id with examples and pointer to role_definitions, and available_modules with format restrictions and effect on results. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opening sentence is a precise spec: 'For a (technique_id, role_id) pair, return modules that can fill the role, ranked by affordance match.' It names the specific resource (role realizations) and action (return), and includes an example query, distinguishing it from siblings like find_compatible_with by focusing on role filling within a technique.

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 states 'Use this when the user has named a technique and you need to recommend modules for a specific role within it,' giving a clear trigger. It also explains how to optionally restrict to the user's rack. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the rationale 'This tool exists to STOP the model from inventing module-role recipes' implies when to favor it over priors.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource/action: get_module(s) for specs, search_modules for filtered queries, resolve_modules for name mapping, find_compatible_with for per-module relations, reachable_pairings/techniques for rack-level analysis. Minor overlap between get_module/get_modules and the relationship tools (find_compatible_with vs reachable_pairings) could cause misselection, but descriptions clarify scope.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly verb_noun snake_case (get_, search_, find_, resolve_, visualize_, report_, lookup_), but three tools break the pattern: rack_redundancy, reachable_pairings, reachable_techniques use noun/adjective phrases without a verb. The get_* cluster is consistent but the overall set mixes conventions.

Tool Count4/5

17 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but justified by the server's broad scope: module specs, search, manuals, relationships, rack analysis, visualization, and feedback. Each tool has a clear role; the count is reasonable for the domain's complexity.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full read-only Eurorack knowledge workflow: module lookup (get_module, search_modules, resolve_modules), manual prose (get_manual_chunk, search_manual), concepts (lookup_concept), techniques (search_techniques, find_role_realizations), compatibility (find_compatible_with, reachable_pairings), rack analysis (reachable_techniques, rack_redundancy), visualization, and provenance (get_source). report_gap even enables self-improvement. No obvious missing operations.

Resources