Scores user intent clarity against Music DNA dimensions and the seed library, then returns missing dimensions and suggestions to refine creative briefs.
Score clarity of user intent vs Music DNA dimensions and seed library; return missing dimensions and suggestions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent_text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a read-only scoring operation by promising 'missing dimensions and suggestions', but says nothing about whether this reads or mutates session state, what permissions or session context it needs, or whether the seed library dependency must be set up first.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the return values. Nothing is redundant, though domain jargon ('Music DNA dimensions', 'seed library') is used without definition.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and undefined domain terms, the description leaves too much unspecified. It never explains what 'Music DNA' or the 'seed library' refer to, so an agent cannot reliably decide when this analysis is appropriate.
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%, with only type and length constraints on intent_text. The description implies the parameter is a free-text statement of user intent but gives no guidance on expected content, format, or length, leaving an undocumented 4000-char string field to the agent's guesswork.
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 ('Score clarity of user intent') against a specific domain resource ('Music DNA dimensions and seed library') and describes what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like map_music_dna or match_top_patterns, which also operate on Music DNA concepts.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. An agent cannot tell from this description whether to call analyze_intent before, after, or instead of map_music_dna or suggest_keywords.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.