Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

redo

Reapply recently undone score edits immediately after an undo, before any MCP read clears Dorico's history.

Instructions

Redo count steps. Only possible right after undo: every MCP read runs a Dorico script, and any script clears Dorico's redo stack (verified).

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": "redo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior burden; it discloses the critical hidden constraint that any MCP read/Dorico script clears the redo stack, and says this was verified. It does not describe failure behavior when the redo stack is empty or count exceeds available steps, leaving a modest gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition, with no wasted wording. The parenthetical '(verified)' and backticks are compact and useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives the essential state dependency and reason, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves minor gaps around empty-stack errors and count limits, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter is count, but the description explains it as the number of steps to redo, adding unit meaning beyond the bare schema title. It omits the default value of 1 and any bounds, but for one integer parameter this is reasonably sufficient.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific action, 'Redo count steps,' and ties it to the sibling concept of undo via 'Only possible right after undo.' An agent can distinguish this from undo without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a strong precondition: use only immediately after undo, because any MCP read runs a script that clears the redo stack. It does not explicitly name undo as a fallback alternative or spell out what to do when no redo history exists, but the condition is clear.

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