Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
notation-mcp

notation-mcp

by delmas41
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

notation_examples

Fetch canonical music notation examples including melody, counterpoint, chord progressions, rhythms, dynamics, string quartet, and tied notes. Use these ready inputs to quickly test notation rendering.

Instructions

Fetch canonical example inputs (single melody, two-voice counterpoint, chord progression, mixed rhythms with dynamics, string quartet snippet, tied notes across bar lines). Cache the result client-side; the response shape is stable.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "notation_examples"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the response should be cached client-side and that the shape is stable, which is valuable behavioral context for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded content. The first sentence lists examples clearly, and the second adds caching and stability info. No redundant text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no parameters or output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells what the tool fetches and describes response characteristics, covering all necessary information for a simple fetch operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by enumerating example categories, going beyond the empty schema.

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 tool fetches canonical example inputs and lists specific examples like single melody and chord progression. It distinguishes from siblings such as knowledge_search, notation_render, notation_schema, and notation_validate by focusing on examples.

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?

Usage is implied by listing examples, but the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other notation tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools