Skip to main content
Glama
romanstark

Dorico Maestro

open_popover

Opens an input popover at the caret for manual text entry, letting you type dynamics, tempo, key, time, or clef markings directly in Dorico. It positions the caret on request and returns typing instructions for the required format.

Instructions

Open an input popover at the caret for manual text entry.

Opens the popover and stops there. Dorico's Remote API cannot populate popovers
directly, so this positions the caret if requested, triggers the
NoteInput.Create* command, and returns the required input format.

Returns:
    Result dictionary with the popover kind, caret location, and typing
    instructions.

Note:
    Requires user interaction in Dorico. Opening a popover leaves it waiting
    for keyboard input. Treat anything sent while it waits as unsafe: a modal
    dialog leaves later commands accepted but unexecuted (docs/protocol.md,
    'Modal Dialog Detection'), and a waiting popover has not been measured to
    behave any better.

    For an unattended write, put the marking in a ScoreSpec and use write_score:
    dynamics and clefs are ScoreSpec fields, and a key or time signature goes in
    through write_score(method='musicxml').

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barNoBar to move the caret to first, counted from 1. Omit to open the popover wherever the caret already is.
kindYesWhich popover to open: 'dynamic', 'tempo', 'key', 'time' or 'clef'. Each maps to its own NoteInput.Create* command.
staffNoStaff index, counted from 0, where 0 is the topmost staff in the current layout. Counted differently from a bar number on purpose: bars start at 1, staves at 0.
pickupNoTrue when the flow starts with a pickup (upbeat) bar. Dorico does not number it as bar 1, so bar navigation lands one bar short without this. Nothing in the API reveals a pickup, so ask the person whose score it is, or read an exported MusicXML file with read_score.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / bar / description
      Added value: +"Bar to move the caret to first, counted from 1. Omit to open the popover wherever the caret already is."
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Added value: +"Which popover to open: 'dynamic', 'tempo', 'key', 'time' or 'clef'. Each maps to its own NoteInput.Create* command."
    • addedInput schema / properties / pickup
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": false,
      +  "description": "True when the flow starts with a pickup (upbeat) bar. Dorico does not number it as bar 1, so bar navigation lands one bar short without this. Nothing in the API reveals a pickup, so ask the person whose score it is, or read an exported MusicXML file with read_score.",
      +  "title": "Pickup",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / staff / description
      Added value: +"Staff index, counted from 0, where 0 is the topmost staff in the current layout. Counted differently from a bar number on purpose: bars start at 1, staves at 0."
  2. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false or unhelpful, but the description discloses rich behavioral detail: the popover cannot be populated directly, the command stops after opening, it returns typing instructions, requires user interaction, and leaves the system in a state where later commands may be unsafe. This is far beyond minimal disclosure and directly informs invocation.

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 with a clear summary, return explanation, and a safety note. Every section earns its place, and the critical behavioral warning is separated and emphasized rather than buried.

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?

For an interactive tool with no useful annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, what it cannot do, when not to use it, and what operational risks exist. The output schema exists, and the description appropriately explains return semantics rather than repeating schema structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a detailed description including counting conventions and defaults. The tool description adds some contextual color about the popover kind mapping to NoteInput.Create* commands, but it does not substantially add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Open an input popover at the caret for manual text entry.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that unattended writes should go through write_score instead, so an agent can tell this interactive popover tool apart from the ScoreSpec-based tools.

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 tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: it is for manual, interactive entry, and it names write_score as the route for unattended writes, including which markings map to ScoreSpec fields. It also warns about the need for user interaction and about unsafe conditions while the popover waits, giving clear situational guidance.

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