Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_break

Force a system or frame break before a chosen bar in a live Dorico score to control where systems or pages split during editing.

Instructions

Force a system or frame (page) break before a bar.

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": {
      "bar": "<bar>"
    },
    "name": "add_break"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barYes
flowNo
kindNosystem

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Force' implies a mutation, but nothing is said about what happens to an existing break at that bar, whether the change is reversible, whether a layout refresh is required, or what the call returns.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much open: the `flow` parameter is unexplained and behavioral consequences are absent. It is adequate only for the simplest reading of the tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the break is placed 'before a bar' (the `bar` parameter) and that the kind is a 'system or frame (page)' break (the `kind` parameter), which is genuinely useful. However, the `flow` parameter is never mentioned and no value formats or defaults are given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('force') and resource ('system or frame (page) break before a bar'), so an agent knows it inserts a layout break at a given bar. It is clear but does not differentiate itself from layout-adjacent siblings such as add_flow or add_layout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the phrasing that it is a score-layout operation.

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