Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
waveform-MCP

waveform-MCP

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

audio_detect_key

Detect the musical key of an audio file, returning root note, mode (major/minor), and confidence. Uses chromagram analysis with Krumhansl-Schmuckler profiles for tonal pop/jazz.

Instructions

Detect the musical key of an audio file. Returns root note + mode (major/minor) with confidence 0..1. Uses chromagram + Krumhansl-Schmuckler key profiles. Reliable on tonal pop/jazz; less reliable on percussion-heavy or atonal material.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "audio_detect_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description does not mention any side effects, read-only nature, or potential modifications to the audio file. Since there are no annotations to supplement this, the description carries the burden and is somewhat lacking in explicit behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise, using two sentences to convey purpose, output, method, and reliability. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple analysis tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it detects, what it returns, the underlying method, and limitations. It does not mention edge cases or error handling, but for this scope it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema only defines file_path as a string. The description adds that it is an audio file, which is useful but minimal. It does not elaborate on format, accessibility, or other constraints, so it adds limited meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the function (detect musical key) and the specific output (root note + mode with confidence). The verb 'detect' is specific and the resource is an audio file, distinguishing it from tempo detection or other analysis tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides implicit usage guidance by noting reliability on tonal pop/jazz and limitations on percussion-heavy or atonal material. This helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools