analyze_cyclic_scaleUse this when an agent needs to analyze one bounded cyclic interval word, including its pitch path, rotations, reversal partners, reflection class, and limited-transposition status. Do not infer ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful non-obvious behavioral scope: the tool is limited to structural analysis and must not be used to infer ownership or licensing. This is consistent with annotations and enriches them with domain-specific constraints.
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 concise sentences, with the primary usage directive front-loaded and no filler. The analytical scope is packed compactly and every clause 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?
The description covers behavior and output focus, and an output schema exists to document return shape. However, the tool has an empty input schema yet depends on a specific 'bounded cyclic interval word'; the description does not disclose how that word is selected or passed, which is a notable gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema has no parameter semantics to document. The description references the conceptual input ('one bounded cyclic interval word') but does not explain how it is supplied; per the 0-params baseline, a 4 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 names a specific verb ('analyze'), a specific resource ('one bounded cyclic interval word'), and enumerates the concrete analytical outputs: pitch path, rotations, reversal partners, reflection class, and limited-transposition status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like generate_cyclic_scales or export_cyclic_scale_musicxml.
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?
It explicitly opens with 'Use this when an agent needs to analyze...', giving a clear condition for invocation. It also adds a boundary by saying 'Do not infer ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability.' It does not explicitly contrast alternatives, but the when-to-use framing is strong.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: the four cyclic-scale tools cleanly separate generation, analysis, MusicXML export, and frequency calculation, while the catalog tools distinguish search, list, composition, release, track, and sheet-music lookup. There are no overlapping responsibilities that would cause an agent to misselect.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun snake_case pattern with clear verbs such as analyze, calculate, export, generate, get, list, and search. The singular/plural usage is logical and predictable throughout the toolset.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and appropriately covers two cohesive subdomains: public music catalog access and cyclic-scale utilities. Each tool has a distinct purpose, and none feel redundant or merely decorative.
The catalog surface covers search, listing releases, and fetching compositions, releases, tracks, and sheet-music resources, while the cyclic-scale tools form a coherent generate-analyze-export workflow. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit way to list tracks for a specific release or browse compositions independently of search, but agents can work around these with the existing tools.