FreqBlog Music Metadata

Score Transition

score_transition

Read-only

Score how well one catalog track mixes into another (0-100) — the pairwise DJ transition score no raw key/BPM API gives you. Combines Camelot-wheel key compatibility, octave-aware BPM proximity (half/double-time counts as a match), and energy smoothness.

Returns the overall `score`, per-component scores (`harmonic`/`tempo`/`energy`), a `detail`
block (key_relation, both Camelot keys, both BPMs, bpm_delta, bpm_octave_matched, both
energies, energy_delta), and a one-line human `reason` (e.g. "8A->9A adjacent (+1), 126->128
BPM (+2), energy +0.04 — clean uplifting mix"). Both ids are catalog itunes_track_ids — get
them from search_catalog or the itunes_track_id field of a get_audio_features result. Costs
1 quota unit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to_track_id`	Yes	The candidate track you're mixing INTO — a catalog itunes_track_id.
`from_track_id`	Yes	The track you're mixing FROM — a catalog itunes_track_id, e.g. 'apple_ad1829eeccb70f9a'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description details exact return structure (overall score, per-component scores, detail block with key/BPM/energy info, human reason) and explains mixing components (Camelot compatibility, BPM proximity, energy smoothness). Aligns with readOnlyHint annotation.

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 efficient with 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and structured logically. Minor redundancy but overall 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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, input sources, return fields, cost, and complements annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). No gaps given output schema existence.

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 covers both required parameters with descriptions. Description reinforces they are catalog itunes_track_ids and provides an example, adding value 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?

Description clearly states it scores DJ transition compatibility between two tracks (0-100) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_audio_features (individual track features) and suggest_next_track (track suggestion).

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?

Description provides context for when to use (pairwise scoring not available elsewhere) and where to obtain track IDs (search_catalog or get_audio_features). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but sibling list compensates.

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

All FreqBlog Music Metadata tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: search, feature retrieval, set building, transition scoring, etc. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., find_tracks_by_key, get_audio_features, build_setlist). No style mixing.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well within the ideal range, covering search, features, discovery, and set building without bloat or deficiency.

Completeness4/5

Core metadata retrieval, search, harmonic mixing, and DJ set tools are all present. Minor gaps like user library management are outside the scope.

Resources

Need Help?