transpose_chordsTranspose a chord progression up or down, either by semitones or from one key to another. Returns the new chords and a link to the transposer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chords | Yes | Chords separated by spaces or commas, e.g. "C G Am F". | |
| to_key | No | Target key, e.g. "E". | |
| from_key | No | Original key, e.g. "C" (alternative to semitones). | |
| semitones | No | Semitones to move (positive = up). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant information: the call returns the new chords plus a link to a transposer, which matters because no output schema exists to convey that.
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 tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return behavior second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.
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?
For a simple read-only utility with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the return shape. It stops short of clarifying the coupling between from_key and to_key or how conflicting semitones/key inputs are resolved, which would have removed the last ambiguity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented (chords format, target key, original key as alternative to semitones, positive=up). The description only restates the semitone-vs-key duality already present in the schema, adding essentially no new parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb (transpose) and resource (chord progression) and enumerates both operating modes: by semitones or by key-to-key conversion. No sibling tool (chord_info, scale_info, capo_finder) overlaps this function, so the purpose is unambiguous without needing to name an alternative.
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 phrase 'either by semitones or from one key to another' implies the two calling modes but never states when to prefer one over the other, nor what happens if both are omitted or supplied together. Usage is inferable from the schema rather than spelled out.
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.