Retrieve the scales and modes creaper recognizes, including how each sounds, and optionally filter by family such as diatonic, pentatonic, or octatonic.
The scales and modes creaper knows, with what each sounds like.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| family | No | diatonic mode, melodic minor mode, harmonic minor mode, heptatonic, pentatonic, hexatonic, symmetric, bebop, octatonic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The phrase 'with what each sounds like' adds genuine value because there is no output schema, telling the agent that entries carry descriptive/character information rather than just names. It still says nothing about ordering, result size, or whether the family filter is exclusive.
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 short front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the output hint is placed after the resource. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of substance rather than being a model of tightness.
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?
For a zero-required-parameter list tool with annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate. Missing are the collection scope (all scales vs. filtered), the relationship to get_scale, and any hint about result size, leaving the agent to guess at the call's behavior.
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 100% and the single 'family' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an enumerated list of families. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (scales and modes known to the system) but supplies no explicit verb and largely echoes the tool name 'list_scales'. It does not distinguish this listing tool from the sibling get_scale, so an agent must infer that this returns a collection while get_scale returns one entry.
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 call this tool, no mention of when to prefer it over get_scale, and no guidance about the optional family filter being a narrowing mechanism. The agent gets no usage context at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.