Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

select_events

Selects specified events in a Dorico score so you can highlight or show them to the user; each selection is an undo step.

Instructions

Select an event in Dorico (e.g. to show the user). Note: selection changes are undo steps in Dorico.

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": {
      "event_ids": "<event_ids>"
    },
    "name": "select_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowNo
event_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one non-obvious trait — that selection changes become undo steps in Dorico. It does not say whether the previous selection is replaced, how multi-event selection behaves, or what happens with invalid event 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the caveat. Minor imprecision ('an event' vs. an array of event IDs) slightly blurs the scope.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and one important side effect but leaves both parameters and the return/error behavior undocumented. Adequate, but not complete.

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 explain event_ids and flow, but it never mentions either. It only vaguely implies that events are identified objects; the meaning of the integer array and the defaulted flow index is left entirely to inference.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Select an event in Dorico') and adds a use case ('e.g. to show the user'). It does not contrast with siblings such as undo or delete_events, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

One implied usage scenario is given (to surface an event to the user) and the undo-step caveat hints at when care is needed, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for related tasks like deleting or inspecting events.

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