doricomcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_options

Retrieves house-style options for engraving, notation, or layout settings in a Dorico score. Use kind, filter, flow_id, or layout_id to target specific options.

Instructions

House-style options: kind kEngraving (per score), kNotation (per flow: flow_id), kLayout (per layout: layout_id). [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": "get_options"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`kind`	No	kLayout
`filter`	No
`flow_id`	No
`layout_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose read-only status. The caveat "not yet confirmed by the live harness" honestly signals the read-only claim is unverified, but it also weakens reliability and nothing is said about error behavior or how per-kind results differ.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a bracketed note, with zero filler and the kind/parameter mapping front-loaded. It is arguably over-terse, but no sentence is wasted.

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 need not be explained. For a simple four-parameter read getter that is adequate, but the undefined `filter` parameter and the unexplained meaning of "house-style options" leave genuine gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by naming the three kind values and tying flow_id to kNotation and layout_id to kLayout. However, the flexible `filter` parameter is entirely undocumented, and the default kind (kLayout) and the meaning of layout_id=0 are not addressed.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description is a noun phrase ("House-style options") with no verb, so the action comes only from the tool name. It does usefully enumerate the three kinds (kEngraving, kNotation, kLayout) and their scoping, which clarifies the resource, but never states what these options control in the score/notation/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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named or implicitly excluded. The three-kind mapping hints at selection logic but the agent is left to infer when kNotation vs kLayout applies.

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

Deploy Server