Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_rehearsal_mark

Adds a rehearsal mark—the next letter in sequence—at the start of a specified bar in a Dorico score.

Instructions

A rehearsal mark (next letter in sequence) at the start of 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_rehearsal_mark"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barYes
flowNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait—the mark's letter is auto-assigned as the next in sequence rather than supplied by the caller—but it says nothing about permission/selection requirements, what happens on duplicate marks, or whether the call is reversible.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short, front-loaded phrase with zero padding, which is good. However, it is telegraphic rather than a complete sentence and stops short of the detail this call needs, so brevity here costs clarity.

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 0% schema description coverage on two parameters, the description is too thin. Missing are the meaning of 'flow', the bar-numbering convention, and any indication of success/error behavior.

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% and there are two parameters. The description implies 'bar' is a bar reference for the mark's placement, but does not say whether it is an absolute bar number, a bar within a flow, or what happens if the bar does not exist. The 'flow' parameter (default 0) is never mentioned at all.

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 names the specific resource (rehearsal mark), its placement (start of a bar), and a non-obvious behavior (the next letter in the sequence is assigned automatically). That is enough to tell it apart from siblings like add_text or add_repeat_marker, even though it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a flow or selection must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as add_text or add_repeat_marker. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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