Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rename_flow

Rename a score flow by supplying its flow ID and a new name, updating flow labels in a live Dorico 6 score during conversation.

Instructions

Rename a flow (ids from get_score_overview flows).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "flow_id": "<flow_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_flow"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
flow_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it does not state that this mutates state, whether the new name must be unique, whether existing references survive, or what the response contains. The only behavioral detail provided is the source of the ids.

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 tight sentence with the id-source hint front-loaded in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the phrasing is terse enough that it reads more like a note than a specification.

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 a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the id-provenance question but omits the effect of the call and the name semantics. It is minimally sufficient to invoke but not to invoke confidently.

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

Parameters2/5

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 for both parameters. It clarifies where flow_id values come from (get_score_overview flows), which is real added meaning, but says nothing about the name parameter's constraints or formatting.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Rename a flow"), which clearly separates it from add_flow and delete_flow. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from rename_layout or rename_player, but the resource word "flow" makes the target unambiguous.

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?

The parenthetical routes the agent to get_score_overview to obtain flow ids, which is genuinely useful context. However, it gives no guidance on preconditions (e.g. that the flow must exist) or on when renaming is preferable to delete/add, so usage is only implied.

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