Lists every mode, generator style, playing pattern, and library category accepted by theory methods so you can choose valid names.
Every name the theory methods accept: modes, generator styles, playing patterns, library categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so no credit is needed for safety. The description adds that the payload is a fixed, closed vocabulary (openWorldHint=false is consistent with this), but says nothing about whether values are returned flat or grouped by category, or about caching/staleness of the list.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly cryptic in phrasing ('Every name the theory methods accept') and would be stronger with a leading verb, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain the return shape. The four listed buckets hint at the structure but leave open whether the response is a flat list of strings or a mapping of category to values, which is the one thing an agent needs here.
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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and the description has nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; there is no parameter detail it could usefully add.
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 a specific resource: the enumeration of valid names ('modes, generator styles, playing patterns, library categories') accepted by the theory_* methods. That distinguishes it from theory_scale/theory_chord/theory_library, which compute or look up content rather than supply the vocabulary. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'), so the purpose is clear but not crisply framed.
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?
Usage is only implied: by saying these are the names the theory methods accept, the agent can infer it should consult this before calling theory_* tools with name arguments. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of siblings, and no note on whether values are case-sensitive or how they combine.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.