Determine the musical key of a bass track from available clip notes, audio capture, or reference, enabling key-matched low-end mix analysis and adjustment.
The key: from the notes of a clip (the bass track's, or track's) when
there are enough, else from the last capture's audio, else the reference's.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | No | ||
| track | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful fallback behavior: notes first, then last capture audio, then reference. However, it does not describe failure behavior, side effects, or what happens when none of the sources are available.
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 a single dense sentence with no wasted words. The fallback chain is compact, though somewhat awkwardly phrased and could be clearer with better punctuation or bullets.
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?
The output schema covers return shape, but the description still leaves important gaps: no explanation of `slot`, no usage guidance, and an undefined threshold for 'enough'. It is adequate for a simple detection tool but not fully self-sufficient.
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 only partially explains the `track` parameter ('the bass track's, or track's'). The `slot` parameter is never explained, and the meaning of 'enough' notes is left undefined.
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 conveys that the tool determines a musical key and specifies its data sources, but it never uses an explicit verb like 'detect' or 'return'. It is more a statement of how the key is derived than a clear statement of what the tool does.
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 no guidance on when to call this tool vs. alternatives among the sibling tools, and names no exclusions or preconditions. The only implied usage is from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.