analyze_chordsAnalyzes chord and bass note data per bar in a music project, returning structured results for up to 32 bars at a configurable resolution.
Chord + bass note per 1/per_bar of a bar (max 32 bars).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bars | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| per_bar | No | ||
| project | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful constraint (max 32 bars), but says nothing about whether analysis is read-only, what permissions the project requires, or how the source parameter affects behavior. For an unannotated tool this is a thin disclosure.
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?
It is a single short sentence, so nothing is wasted, but it is arguably over-terse to the point of ambiguity rather than genuinely concise. The core information is front-loaded but opaque.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with 0% parameter coverage, no annotations, and a cryptic one-liner, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer about a four-parameter analysis tool.
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 four parameters. The description loosely maps to 'bars' and 'per_bar', but the required 'project' parameter and the 'source' parameter are never explained. It compensates only partially for the total absence of schema descriptions.
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 names a specific resource (chords + bass note) which does distinguish it from many analyze_* siblings like analyze_key or analyze_melody. However, the phrasing 'per 1/per_bar of a bar' is cryptic and the intended verb is only implied by the name. It states what is analyzed but not clearly enough to confidently separate it from adjacent analyzers.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other analyze_* siblings, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.