get_compositionUse this when an agent needs to get public recordings matching a composition title. Do not infer ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond those by clarifying that only public recordings are returned and instructing the agent not to infer ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability. This is useful cautionary context about the tool's limits.
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 filler. The usage guidance is front-loaded, and the cautionary note about not inferring ownership/licensing earns its place by preventing common misuse. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Despite having an output schema and simple annotations, the description omits a clear definition of the 'id' parameter, which is essential for invoking the tool correctly. It covers the basic purpose and limitations, but the parameter ambiguity leaves the definition slightly incomplete for an agent.
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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain that the required 'id' parameter is the composition title or identifier. The phrasing 'matching a composition title' implies a title-based lookup, but the link to the actual parameter is left vague, so the description does not fully compensate for the schema gap.
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 states the tool's verb and resource specifically: it 'get[s] public recordings matching a composition title.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_track or get_sheet_music by limiting scope to public recordings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify whether 'id' refers to the composition title.
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 gives an explicit condition: use when an agent needs public recordings matching a composition title. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the when-to-use context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings like get_release or get_track.
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.