Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

rename_player

Rename a Dorico score player by ID and set a display or optional short name, keeping player labels accurate for score overviews and edits.

Instructions

Rename a player (index in get_score_overview players).

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": {
      "player_id": "<player_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
player_idYes
short_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about mutation effects, required permissions, or whether renaming affects references elsewhere in the score. Beyond implying a write, it discloses no behavioral traits at all.

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 short sentence with the key scoping detail front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably over-terse given the undocumented parameters, but structurally sound.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It leaves the two name parameters and the consequences of renaming unexplained, so an agent could invoke it but not 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, and it only explains player_id (an index into get_score_overview). It says nothing about name versus the optional short_name, leaving the distinction between the two name fields entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a player'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like rename_flow and rename_layout. The parenthetical adds where the player identifier comes from, so an agent knows the target universe 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 Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the parenthetical pointing at get_score_overview tells the agent how to obtain a player index, which is a useful prerequisite hint. However, there is no explicit statement of when to rename versus add_player, and no warning that the player must already exist.

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