Retrieves available songwriting instruments grouped by role (drums, bass, keys, guitar, strings, synth), listing recommended picks first and limiting results per role.
Instruments available for songwriting, grouped by the role each suits (drums, bass, keys, guitar, strings, synth), best pick first. Derived from the registered instruments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limitPerRole | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose ordering ('best pick first') and provenance ('derived from the registered instruments'), which are real behavioral traits. But it never states the operation is read-only, what happens when no instruments are registered, or whether the output is filtered by project state.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and the role taxonomy, with no filler. Only minor waste in the redundant 'instruments ... derived from the registered instruments' echo.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape; it does so partially (grouped by role with an enumerated role list, best pick first). It omits the parameter contract and any indication of result size or empty-state behavior, which leaves gaps for an agent planning a call.
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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter limitPerRole is never mentioned, so an agent cannot learn from the description that per-role result counts are capped or default to 4. The phrase 'grouped by the role' gives partial context for why per-role limits exist, but the parameter itself is undocumented in both places.
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?
States a specific resource (instruments available for songwriting) and its grouping structure by role, which no sibling tool offers. The action verb is only implied (it's a noun phrase), but an agent can immediately tell this is a read-only instrument catalog rather than a MIDI/track tool.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says to call it before creating tracks or writing MIDI, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. The only hint of usage is the implicit 'available for songwriting' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.