Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_key_signature

Set a key signature from a chosen bar onward in a Dorico score using accidentals or key names such as 2#, 3b, 0, Eb, F#m, or c minor.

Instructions

Key signature from a bar on: "2#", "3b", "0", or names like "Eb", "F#m", "c minor".

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": {
      "value": "<value>",
      "bar": "<bar>"
    },
    "name": "set_key_signature"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barYes
beatNo0
flowNo
valueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 burden. The phrase 'from a bar on' hints that the change persists across subsequent measures, which is useful, but nothing is said about how existing key signatures are handled, reversibility, required score context, or what the response looks like.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short line with no filler, and the value-format examples are front-loaded. But the terseness crosses into under-specification, and the sentence structure makes it unclear whether it describes the tool or just one argument.

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?

With four parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description covering only value formats leaves the agent without enough to call the tool reliably, particularly for the required `bar` argument and the optional `beat`/`flow`.

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% across four parameters, and the description only explains the accepted formats for `value` ('2#', '3b', '0', 'Eb', 'F#m', 'c minor'). The `bar`, `beat`, and `flow` parameters remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The fragment 'Key signature from a bar on' implies setting a key signature beginning at a given bar, and the quoted examples make the resource recognizable. However it reads like a parameter description rather than a tool statement, and it never uses a clear verb or distinguishes itself from sibling setters like set_time_signature.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus set_time_signature, set_pitch, or set_property, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. An agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name.

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