Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_notes

Write notes, chords, and rests into a Dorico score from a chosen position; replace a span or add and merge chords while keeping existing markings.

Instructions

Write notes, chords and rests one after another from a position. notes: space-separated items "PITCHES:DURATION"; chords join pitches with "+"; "r" is a rest; a missing duration repeats the previous one. Durations: crotchets (1, 3/2, 1/2) or w h q e s t (+ dots, e.g. "q."). Pitches: C4 = middle C, F#5, Bb3. Example: "Eb4+G4+C5:h. G4:e Eb5:q. C5:s r:q". replace=True first clears the notes and rests of the span (slurs, text and other markings there stay); otherwise notes are added (chords merge with existing notes).

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": {
      "notes": "<notes>",
      "voice": "<voice>"
    },
    "name": "add_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barNo
posNo
beatNo0
flowNo
notesYes
voiceYes
replaceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it does meaningful work: replace=True clears only notes and rests of the span while slurs, text and markings survive, and the default mode merges chords with existing notes. That mutation semantics disclosure is exactly what an agent needs before writing. Gaps remain around position resolution, validation and failure modes.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, then organized into syntax rules, duration and pitch reference, an example, and the replace caveat. Dense but every block earns its place given the compact notation grammar. Slightly list-like, but readable.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the notation grammar is covered exceptionally well but positional parameters (bar, pos, beat, flow) and voice are left opaque, and nothing is said about return values or error behavior. An agent can construct a notes string but cannot reason confidently about where it lands.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, and the description only explains two of them: notes (very thoroughly, with syntax, duration table and a worked example) and replace. The required voice parameter plus bar, pos, beat and flow are entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot tell what voice means or how position defaults are resolved.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Write notes, chords and rests one after another from a position.' The agent knows exactly what gets created. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling edit_notes, so an agent must guess which of the two to pick for modifying existing notes.

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 only implied by the verb 'write' plus the entry point phrase 'from a position'. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of edit_notes as the alternative for changing notes already present. The replace flag's interaction with existing content is the closest thing to selection guidance.

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