Starts Dorico score playback from a specified bar or the current playhead.
Start playback (from a bar, or from the playhead).
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": "play"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flow | No | ||
| from_bar | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether playback is blocking or returns immediately, whether it plays to the end, whether it requires an active connection to the host application, or what the response contains. Only the starting-point behavior is hinted at.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single short sentence with the key verb front-loaded and no wasted words. Brevity here shades into under-specification, but as a structural matter the phrasing is tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description is too thin. An agent gets no information about the flow parameter, playback lifecycle, or return behavior, which are essential to invoking transport controls correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The parenthetical 'from a bar, or from the playhead' loosely maps to from_bar being nullable, but there is no bar-numbering convention given, and the 'flow' parameter (default 0) is entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether 0 means the current flow or flow index zero.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Start playback') and clarifies the two possible starting points. It is clear enough to distinguish from the add_*/edit_* siblings, which are all score-modification tools, though it never explicitly says so.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by 'Start playback'; there is no statement of when to use it versus any other transport action, no preconditions, and no mention of what happens if playback is already running. The parenthetical mode distinction is the only guidance offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.