Scored across 30 tools
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few could be confused: write_score and render_to_dorico overlap significantly, and read_score, read_open_score, and read_project_info all deal with reading scores but from different sources. The descriptions do a good job of clarifying the differences, so misselection is unlikely for an agent that reads them carefully.
Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_commands, read_selection, write_score), but a few deviate: transpose, playback, and save are single verbs, and score_schema is a noun. These deviations are minor and the overall naming is still predictable and readable.
With 30 tools, this server exceeds the 25-tool threshold that the rubric considers too many. While the domain is complex and the tools cover a broad range of operations (editing, playback, export, analysis), the large surface area may overwhelm agents and increase the chance of misselection. The count is not extreme (not 50+), but it is still high.
The tool set covers the core workflows: writing notes (add_notes, add_rest, write_score), editing (transpose), reading (read_selection, read_score, read_open_score), export/import (export_pdf, export_musicxml, import_musicxml), and analysis (analyze_harmony, check_voice_leading, etc.). Gaps exist, such as inability to set key/time signatures directly and no explicit undo/redo, but these are addressed through documented workarounds (e.g., using write_score with MusicXML, or run_command). The surface is largely complete for the stated purpose.