score_renderRenders score pages to PNG images at a chosen DPI, returning up to four pages per call for visual inspection of a specific score version.
今の版（または指定した版）のページを PNG に描いて画像で返す。dpi は 30〜200（既定 80）。一度に返すのは 4 ページまで。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpi | No | ||
| pages | No | 返すページ番号（1 始まり） | |
| version | No | 版の番号（省略時は今の版） | |
| 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, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return form (PNG images) and the hard 4-page-per-call ceiling, but the dpi range and defaults merely restate the schema, and nothing is said about error behavior for out-of-range pages or how multi-page results are packaged.
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?
Three short sentences: what it renders and returns first, then the dpi constraint, then the batch limit. Zero wasted words and correctly front-loaded.
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 correctly explains the return type (PNG images) and the cardinality cap. It falls slightly short on how multiple page images are delivered and on failure modes, but it is sufficient for a simple read-only render tool.
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 75%, with score_id, version, and pages already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the dpi bounds and the version default, adding little meaning beyond the structured fields; a 3 baseline applies.
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 precise verb and resource: render pages of the current (or specified) version to PNG and return images. None of the siblings render or produce images, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.
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 parenthetical '（または指定した版）' implies when to pass a version, and the 4-page cap sets a batching constraint. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to render vs. inspect structure (e.g., layout_inspect) or what to do for larger page ranges.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.