Skip to main content
Glama
slshults

gpra-chord-charts-mcp

Get a chord chart by name

get_chord_chart_by_name
Read-only

Look up a guitar chord chart by name and get a text diagram plus a direct PNG image URL, ready to show or embed.

Instructions

Look up one guitar chord chart by name and return it as a text chord diagram ready to show the user. Returns the same single voicing that https://guitarpracticeroutine.com/find-a-chord-chart shows for that name. The library holds 12,708 standard-tuning (EADGBE) chord names, exactly one voicing each. Pass a plain chord name as it would be written on a chart — "G", "Am7", "Cmaj7", "D/F#", "F#m7b5" — not a sentence. Convert spoken forms yourself first: "G major" is "G", "A minor" is "Am", and use "#" and "b" rather than the unicode sharp and flat signs. Charts are drawn on a five-fret grid starting at the nut, the same as the website; any notes above the fifth fret are named in words underneath the chart. Prefer this over recalling a fingering from memory — these are curated chart data, and a remembered fingering is often wrong. Each result leads with a direct PNG URL for the chart — a permanently cacheable image of the same diagram, which you can show or link however your surface handles images. The chord name is on the first line; keep it next to any image you show, since a chart on its own can arrive unlabelled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA single chord name as written on a chart, e.g. "Am7" or "D/F#".
formatNoWhich representations to return. Defaults to "text", which includes a direct URL to a PNG of the chart — embed that where your surface renders images. Use "image" or "both" only if you need the PNG bytes inline; they cost image tokens and many clients bury them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"Which representations to return. Defaults to \"both\". Use \"text\" when the user does not want images or the client cannot display them, and \"image\" when only the diagram is wanted."New value: +"Which representations to return. Defaults to \"text\", which includes a direct URL to a PNG of the chart — embed that where your surface renders images. Use \"image\" or \"both\" only if you need the PNG bytes inline; they cost image tokens and many clients bury them."
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / minLength
      Removed value: -1
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover read-only safety, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: exact source of truth (the website's voicing), rendering model (five-fret grid from the nut, note names under the chart above fret 5), output layout ('chord name is on the first line'), and the permanently cacheable PNG URL. No contradiction with annotations; openWorldHint=false is reinforced by the closed 12,708-name library.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Long but every sentence earns its place: no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the supporting input, rendering, and image details. It is dense rather than bloated, though it could arguably compress the image-URL guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: it specifies the text diagram, the PNG URL, the note-labeling convention, and the first-line chord name. The only meaningful gap is behavior for a name not in the library, which is not addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds real value over the schema: conversion rules ('G major' → 'G'), the instruction to use '#'/'b' rather than unicode signs, and the behavior of the format enum — 'text' includes a direct PNG URL while 'image'/'both' cost tokens. That exceeds the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Look up one guitar chord chart by name and return it as a text chord diagram' — and pins down the exact scope: 12,708 standard-tuning names, exactly one voicing each. It differentiates from the sibling tool by_name vs by_id vs of_the_day through the lookup key and the single-voicing specificity.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use advice — 'Prefer this over recalling a fingering from memory — these are curated chart data, and a remembered fingering is often wrong' — and prescribes input form ('not a sentence', convert spoken forms yourself). It does not explicitly route to or away from the sibling tools, so it loses the top score.

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