Skip to main content
Glama
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq

describe_commands

Search Dorico's 1,200 commands by regex on name or display name to retrieve each command's parameters and allowed enum values.

Instructions

Search Dorico's 1,200 commands (regex on name/display name) with their parameters and enum values. [READ-ONLY: not yet confirmed by the live harness]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "describe_commands"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
filterNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search index (1,200 commands), the matching mechanism (regex on name/display name), and candidly flags that read-only status is unconfirmed — useful honesty, but it doesn't explain matching/pagination behavior like whether limit truncates results or how regex errors surface.

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?

Two compact lines, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with the caveat bracketed separately. The '[READ-ONLY: not yet confirmed]' phrasing is slightly awkward but earns its place as a trust signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers the search model adequately. But with zero schema coverage on two parameters, missing regex/limit semantics leaves an agent guessing how to page through 1,200 commands.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails: 'filter' is loosely implied to be the regex pattern, but its syntax and case sensitivity are unstated, and 'limit' (default 40) 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?

States a specific verb and resource: searches Dorico's 1,200 commands by regex on name/display name, and returns their parameters and enum values. That is more specific than a generic 'describe' tool, though it doesn't distinguish itself explicitly from sibling describe_enums or describe_property.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus describe_enums or describe_property, and no indication of when a filter is worth supplying versus browsing with limit. The only implied usage is 'find a command's parameters', which the agent must infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.