Skip to main content
Glama

Spell Piano Chord

spell_piano_chord
Read-onlyIdempotent

Spell a supported chord as piano pitches with octave and MIDI values. This does not create a rhythmic arrangement.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "spell_piano_chord"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
octaveNo
symbolYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output includes octave and MIDI values and clarifies the non-arrangement scope, but says nothing about which chords are supported or what happens for an invalid symbol.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful scope exclusion. No filler, though the second sentence is the only place scope constraints appear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does partially cover the return shape (pitches, octave, MIDI values), which is helpful. It is still incomplete for a 2-param tool with zero schema description coverage: supported chord vocabulary and symbol format are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It hints that 'symbol' is a chord symbol and that 'octave' shifts the pitches, but never states the accepted symbol syntax (e.g. 'Cmaj7') or how octave interacts with the spelled pitches' register.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: 'Spell a supported chord as piano pitches with octave and MIDI values' tells an agent exactly what is produced. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like transpose_chords or tab_to_piano_notes, so it falls short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance is a negative one ('does not create a rhythmic arrangement'), which excludes an adjacent capability but names no alternative. There is no statement of when to pick this over transpose_chords or tab_to_piano_notes, and 'supported chord' is never defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.