AIGigLab MCP Server

compose_music

Convert a text prompt or composition plan into music. Generate audio from your musical concepts.

Instructions

Convert a prompt or composition plan into actual music.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "compose_music"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prompt`	No	Prompt to convert to music (if no plan is provided)
`music_length_ms`	No	Length in ms (if no plan is provided)
`composition_plan`	No	The composition plan object from 'create_composition_plan'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'convert into actual music' without mentioning processing time, permissions, or side effects. Does not state whether it is destructive or whether it generates a new asset.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It could be more structured to explain parameter usage and output.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, yet description does not explain what 'actual music' means (e.g., audio file, streaming URL). Does not clarify that at least one of 'prompt' or 'composition_plan' must be provided. Missing context for a multi-parameter tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as valid value ranges or relationships between parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool converts a prompt or composition plan into music, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'composition plan' which links to 'create_composition_plan'. However, it does not specify the output format (audio file, URL).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'brandos_generate_asset'. No mention of prerequisites or when to provide a prompt vs a composition plan. No exclusion scenarios.

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