Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_context_at

Read what is in force at a specific bar, beat, flow, and voice—time/key signatures, clef, dynamics, tempo, hairpins, ottava, and sounding notes—to inspect or verify a Dorico score.

Instructions

What is in force at a point: time signature, key signature, clef, dynamic level (and a hairpin running through the point), ottava, the last tempo marking (text, bpm), and the notes sounding in the voice.

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": "read_context_at"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barNo
posNo
beatNo0
flowNo
voiceNo
include_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return contents, but does not state read-only behavior, side effects, error handling, or defaults for the six parameters.

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?

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with a compact list of returned values. It is efficient, though the long enumeration could be slightly more structured.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is incomplete. It explains return contents but not how to specify the point or what include_key/flow mean, so an agent would need to guess parameter usage.

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%, and the description does not explain bar, pos, beat, flow, voice, or include_key. It only alludes to 'a point' and 'the voice', leaving the six parameters undocumented.

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 resource (musical context at a point) and enumerates the specific values returned: time signature, key signature, clef, dynamics, tempo, and sounding notes. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic read_music/read_markings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 or exclusion. It does not say when to prefer read_context_at over read_markings or read_music; the only implied usage is retrieving context at a point.

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