Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dorico MCP Server

Dorico MCP Server

by happycastle114
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_playability

Assesses playability of a musical passage on an instrument, highlighting range and technique limitations.

Instructions

Check if a passage is playable on an instrument.

Args: instrument: Instrument name (e.g., "violin", "flute") pitches: List of pitches to check

Returns: Playability analysis with range and technique issues

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": {
      "instrument": "<instrument>",
      "pitches": "<pitches>"
    },
    "name": "check_playability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instrumentYes
pitchesYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states returns 'Playability analysis with range and technique issues', indicating a read-only analysis, but does not elaborate on side effects or prerequisites.

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 concise, with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence is informative and well-structured for quick agent parsing.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and output. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) is complemented by the description of return content.

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?

Despite schema coverage being 0%, the description itself includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: instrument with examples and pitches as a list. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type-only information.

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 playability for an instrument, with specific examples of arguments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_instrument_range (range-only) and analyze_chord (chord analysis).

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?

The description implies usage when needing playability analysis but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools like check_instrument_range and transpose_for_instrument 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