get_solfeggioReturns the nine-tone Solfeggio frequency scale with each tone's traditional healing properties, note name, and use cases. These frequencies underpin modern sound healing practice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hz | No | Look up a specific frequency in Hz — e.g. 528 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| frequencies | Yes | ||
| sound_healing_page | 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": {
+ "frequencies": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "sound_healing_page": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "frequencies"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about traditional healing and modern practice but no behavioral details 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: specifies nine-tone scale, properties, note names, use cases, and modern relevance. No wasted words.
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 output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains the return content (scale, properties, note, use cases). It omits the optional parameter, but the schema covers that.
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 covers 100% of parameter documentation, including the optional 'hz' parameter. The description adds no parameter info, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 it returns the nine-tone Solfeggio frequency scale with healing properties, note name, and use cases. It is specific to Solfeggio frequencies, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_chakra_frequencies, though not explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chakra_frequencies. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.
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.