Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

read_music

Reads notes, chords, rests, articulations, and timing details from a Dorico score by bar or position range, with compact or grid views for checking voices and vertical alignment.

Instructions

Notes, chords, rests (explicit and implicit), grace notes, tuplets, slurs and articulations per voice, with exact positions, durations, spelled pitches, MIDI numbers and event ids. Range: bars (inclusive) or positions [from_pos, to_pos). detail="compact": per voice and bar the notes in add_notes syntax plus their ids (about a tenth of the size; use it for long ranges or many voices). detail="grid": one row per onset of any voice (or every grid_step crotchets, e.g. "1/2") with what each voice sounds, for checking verticals.

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_music"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowNo
detailNofull
to_barNo
to_posNo
voicesNo
from_barNo
from_posNo
grid_stepNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context: range semantics (bars inclusive vs. half-open position intervals) and the size/scope tradeoffs of compact and grid modes. It says nothing about permissions, failure behavior on invalid ranges, or defaults for unset parameters, so coverage is partial rather than rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned content, then range semantics, then mode-specific guidance that is clearly labelled by detail value. Dense but every clause carries information; only the unannounced jump into mode jargon slightly hurts first-pass readability.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does useful work by describing the return payload and range semantics. Gaps remain: the flow parameter, defaults for voices and to_bar, and any error behavior are unexplained, which matters given the total absence of structured documentation.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It successfully defines the range parameters (inclusive bars, half-open from_pos/to_pos) and grid_step (crotchets, e.g. "1/2"), and implies voices scoping, but the flow parameter is never explained and default behavior for omitted voices is unstated.

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 a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what is returned: notes, chords, rests, grace notes, tuplets, slurs and articulations per voice with positions, durations, spelled pitches, MIDI numbers and event ids. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling readers like read_markings or read_context_at, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Guidance is present but scoped to the detail modes rather than to tool selection: use compact for long ranges or many voices, and grid for checking verticals. There is no statement of when to use read_music versus the other read_* siblings, leaving that inference to the agent.

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