get_chakra_frequenciesReturns the seven Solfeggio chakra frequencies with musical notes, colors, and affirmations. For the full guide (crystals, oils, poses, Sedona vortex) use get_chakra_guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chakra | No | Specific chakra — omit for all seven |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tip | No | ||
| chakras | Yes | ||
| chakra_sound_bath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "chakra_sound_bath": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "chakras": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "tip": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "chakras"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, fully covering behavioral safety. The description adds the return content context, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides an alternative tool reference. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema/enum coverage, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It tells what it returns and when to use the sibling for more depth.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter that has a clear enum description. The description does not add extra parameter-level information, but the schema fully documents the parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns Solfeggio chakra frequencies with musical notes, colors, and affirmations. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_chakra_guide' by specifying what the guide includes (crystals, oils, etc.) and recommending it for full detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative 'get_chakra_guide' by stating 'For the full guide... use get_chakra_guide.' This provides clear context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.