Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dorico MCP Server

Dorico MCP Server

by happycastle114
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_beaming

Analyzes beaming in a bar by checking note values against the time signature, providing suggestions to fix irregular beaming according to standard notation rules.

Instructions

Check if beaming follows standard notation rules.

Args: time_signature: Time signature (e.g., "4/4", "6/8") note_values: List of note values in a bar (e.g., ["8th", "8th", "8th", "8th"])

Returns: Beaming analysis with suggestions

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": {
      "time_signature": "<time_signature>",
      "note_values": "<note_values>"
    },
    "name": "check_beaming"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
time_signatureYes
note_valuesYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only analysis returning suggestions, with no indication of side effects. However, 'standard notation rules' is vague.

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?

The description is brief, with a clear purpose sentence followed by structured Args/Returns. No redundancy, front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers inputs and output nature. Could elaborate on rule specifics, but sufficient given context.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter with types and examples (e.g., '4/4', '8th'), adding significant meaning beyond the bare 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 checks beaming for standard notation rules, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_enharmonic or check_instrument_range by focusing on beaming.

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 (use when needing to verify beaming), but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, nor exclusions. Sibling tools are present but not compared.

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