ScoreStarling

Save a shared score

save_shared_score

Idempotent

Save the current allowed score as an independent copy using its edition_id. No chats, transcription or credits. Reuse request_id after an unclear result. Open the returned score to edit.

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": {
      "share_id": "<share_id>",
      "edition_id": "<edition_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "save_shared_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name for the new score, 1 to 120 characters.
`share_id`	Yes	32 lowercase hex characters from the share link.
`edition_id`	Yes	Current edition_id from get_shared_score.
`request_id`	Yes	Stable UUID for this copy.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that no chats, transcription, or credits are involved, and it explains the idempotency behavior (reuse request_id after an unclear result) and a follow-up action (open the returned score to edit).

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?

The description is three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Wording is efficient, though 'No chats, transcription or credits' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer without losing conciseness.

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?

For a write operation with four required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is largely complete. It explains what is not consumed and what to do after saving, but it omits how to obtain the required share_id and edition_id (though the schema for edition_id points to get_shared_score).

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%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description reinforces edition_id usage and adds behavioral meaning to request_id ('Reuse request_id after an unclear result'), but it does not add substantial new semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Save the current allowed score as an independent copy using its edition_id.' It clarifies what the tool does not do ('No chats, transcription or credits'), helping distinguish it from related actions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like create_score or get_shared_score, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 description offers procedural guidance ('Reuse request_id after an unclear result' and 'Open the returned score to edit'), but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied through the mention of edition_id, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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

All ScoreStarling tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?