Skip to main content
Glama
romanstark

Dorico Maestro

instrument_range

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify an instrument's standard written range, or test a specific pitch against it, to catch out-of-range notes before writing a score.

Instructions

Look up a standard instrument compass, or test one pitch against it.

Two questions through one door: without a pitch it reports the range, with one it
reports whether that note is inside it. Entirely offline and read-only.

Returns:
    Result dictionary with in_range when a pitch was given, or the lowest and
    highest playable pitches when it was not.

Note:
    These are the standard written ranges for a competent player, not the limits
    of the instrument or of a particular one: professionals exceed them and
    beginners do not reach them.

    Worth calling before write_score when writing for an instrument, since
    write_score with preflight left on runs the same check over a whole score and
    reports what falls outside.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pitchNoA pitch to test in scientific notation, e.g. 'C4' or 'A5'. Omit to get the full compass instead of a yes or no.
instrumentYesInstrument to look up, e.g. 'violin', 'flute', 'cello' or 'trumpet'. Matched against the standard orchestral names.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / instrument / description
      Added value: +"Instrument to look up, e.g. 'violin', 'flute', 'cello' or 'trumpet'. Matched against the standard orchestral names."
    • addedInput schema / properties / pitch / description
      Added value: +"A pitch to test in scientific notation, e.g. 'C4' or 'A5'. Omit to get the full compass instead of a yes or no."
  2. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is strong: it clarifies that the ranges are standard written ranges for a competent player, not instrument limits, and that professionals exceed them while beginners do not. It also explicitly states the operation is offline and read-only, reinforcing the safety profile with context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: a one-paragraph summary of the tool's dual behavior, followed by concise 'Returns' and 'Note' sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the relationship to write_score is positioned at the end where it naturally supports usage decisions.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and thorough annotations, the description covers the remaining context needed: the two possible outcomes, the caveat about standard written ranges, and the link to write_score preflight. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents both parameters with examples and descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some behavioral color about 'without a pitch' versus 'with one,' but most parameter-level meaning is already present in the schema. It does not substantially extend the parameter documentation.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific action ('Look up a standard instrument compass, or test one pitch against it'), clearly identifying both the resource and the two modes of the tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like write_score by framing itself as a standalone range-check tool rather than a score-writing or transformation operation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Worth calling before write_score when writing for an instrument') and contrasts it with write_score, which runs the same check over a whole score. It also explains the conditional behavior depending on whether a pitch is supplied, giving the agent clear decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/romanstark/dorico-maestro'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server