fl-bridge-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Fl Notes Marker

fl_notes_marker

Queue piano roll markers for scale or time signature. Scale markers highlight in-scale keys; time signature markers set meter changes.

Instructions

Queue a piano roll marker: kind=scale (root + scale name, highlights in-scale keys) or kind=time_signature.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "fl_notes_marker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`kind`	Yes
`name`	No
`root`	No	C
`time`	No
`scale`	No	minor
`numerator`	No
`denominator`	No
`auto_trigger`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description partially explains behavior (queues a marker, highlights in-scale keys) but leaves side effects, state changes, or requirements (e.g., open piano roll) unclear.

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 a single concise sentence with a clear structure, though the 'kind=scale' notation could be slightly more explicit.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), the description is too brief. It omits parameter interactions, default behaviors, and potential errors, making it incomplete for reliable usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema lists 8 parameters but the description only explains 'kind' and indirectly mentions 'root' and 'scale'. It does not clarify the meaning of 'name', 'time', 'numerator', 'denominator', or 'auto_trigger', and the schema has no descriptions to compensate.

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 clearly states the action ('queue a piano roll marker') and the resource, and distinguishes two specific kinds (scale and time_signature). This is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools like fl_markers.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as fl_markers or fl_notes_add. Scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing this tool are not mentioned.

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

Deploy Server