Retrieve MusicXML for a specified inclusive range of measures from a Flat.io score, optionally limited to one part, to inspect or reuse score excerpts.
Devolve o MusicXML dos compassos nas posições start..end (1-based, inclusivo). Sem part_id, traz o trecho de todas as partes. Prefira trechos de até ~16 compassos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| part_id | No | ||
| revision | No | last | |
| score_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it does disclose read-only behavior, the 1-based inclusive indexing, and the part_id default meaning 'all parts'. However, it never explains the 'revision' parameter (default 'last'), truncation behavior, or whether ranges beyond the score fail or clamp.
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?
Two compact sentences, range semantics front-loaded, with the caller guidance last. 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?
For a read-only excerpt tool with no output schema the core is present, but a 5-parameter signature with two undocumented parameters (score_id, revision) leaves real gaps an agent would hit on first call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only covers start, end, and part_id semantics. score_id and especially the revision parameter (default 'last') are left entirely unexplained for a 5-parameter tool.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Devolve o MusicXML dos compassos') plus an explicit range scope (start..end, 1-based, inclusive), which clearly distinguishes this partial-extraction tool from flat_get_musicxml. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
It gives actionable guidance: use small excerpts of up to ~16 measures, and omit part_id to get all parts. What's missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer flat_get_musicxml or flat_replace_measures over this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.