Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MIDI MCP Server

MIDI MCP Server

by tubone24
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

parse_chord

Parse chord names into component MIDI pitches to reveal voicings and enable chord-based composition.

Instructions

Parse a chord name and return its component MIDI pitches. Useful for understanding chord voicings.

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": {
      "chord": "<chord>"
    },
    "name": "parse_chord"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chordYesChord name (e.g., "Cmaj7", "Dm", "F#m7", "G7sus4")
octaveNoOctave for the root note (default: 4)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the output (MIDI pitches) but does not mention read-only nature, error handling for invalid chord names, whether pitches are sorted, or how octave affects non-root notes. Behavior is partly transparent but gaps remain.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array of integers, sorted order) or how octave interacts with chord voicing internals. More detail would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both chord and octave have descriptions. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline provided by 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?

Description clearly states the verb (parse) and resource (chord name) and the result (component MIDI pitches). This differentiates it from the sibling create_midi, which generates MIDI rather than parsing chords.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Useful for understanding chord voicings' implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_midi, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It gives context but lacks clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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