score_compareCompares two score versions (default: previous vs current) to report page/system counts, measure spacing and breaks, style changes, and page-image pixel differences.
2 つの版（既定は 1 つ前と今）を比べ、ページ数・段数・段ごとの小節数、小節ごとの伸び縮み/改段の差、スタイルの差、ページ画像の画素の差を返す。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| dpi | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| score_id | Yes | score_open が返した score_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the comparison's output dimensions (including pixel-level image diff, hinting at rendering cost), but it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether missing versions error out, or what the response shape is.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and the default behavior before enumerating comparison outputs. The list is long but every element describes a real returned metric; no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully substitutes by enumerating return contents, which is the strongest part. However, for a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage and no annotations, it leaves parameter meaning and safety/side-effect profile underspecified.
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 description coverage is only 25% (only score_id documented). The description implies the from/to defaults ('previous and current') but never names those parameters or explains their semantics (version indices? numbers?), and the dpi parameter — clearly relevant to the pixel-diff output — is not mentioned at all.
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?
Specific verb (compare) + resource (two versions) plus an explicit enumeration of what differences are returned: page count, systems, measures per system, stretch/break changes, style diffs, pixel diffs. No sibling tool offers version comparison, and the description makes that niche unmistakable.
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?
The default 'previous vs current' behavior is stated, which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no disambiguation from layout_inspect or score_render, which also surface layout information. Usage is inferable rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.