Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_tempo

Set a tempo marking in a Dorico score at a specified bar, beat, or position, using values like "q=120", "Allegro q=132", or "rit." to control playback speed.

Instructions

A tempo marking: "q=120", "Allegro q=132", "h.=60", "rit.", "a tempo".

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>"
    },
    "name": "set_tempo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barNo
posNo
beatNo0
flowNo
valueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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, yet it discloses nothing: whether an existing tempo at the same position is overwritten, whether the marking requires a bar/pos, what happens to playback vs. display, or how flow scoping works. It is a mutating tool with a value list and zero behavioral information.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy: it opens with a fragment instead of a purpose statement and offers no structure. It does not front-load the one thing an agent needs to know before calling.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a five-parameter mutating tool with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, one line of example values is nowhere near sufficient. An agent cannot determine what bar/pos/beat/flow mean or what will be changed in the score.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. The examples usefully reveal the value syntax ('q=120', 'h.=60', 'rit.', 'a tempo' format), but bar, pos, beat, and flow are left completely unexplained, leaving the majority of the schema opaque.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a noun fragment ('A tempo marking: ...') followed by example strings; it restates the tool name rather than stating a verb and resource, e.g. that it places a tempo marking in the score. The examples hint at the domain but an agent learns nothing about scope or effect that 'set_tempo' did not already convey.

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 siblings such as set_duration or set_time_signature, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The examples are illustrative values only, not usage direction.

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