Skip to main content
Glama
romanstark

Dorico Maestro

by romanstark
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_time_signature

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports inability to set a time signature and suggests alternatives: use the interactive popover or include it in a ScoreSpec for file-based writes.

Instructions

Report that a time signature cannot be set here, and what to use instead.

This writes nothing and always reports failure, which is the honest answer
rather than a silent no-op: Dorico takes a time signature only through an
interactive popover, and the Remote API cannot type into one.

Returns:
    Result dictionary explaining the limitation and naming the alternatives.

Note:
    Two ways round it. For a person at the keyboard, open_popover(kind='time')
    opens the popover for them to type into. For an unattended write, put the
    time signature in a ScoreSpec and use write_score(method='musicxml') or
    export_musicxml, both of which set it through the file rather than the UI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signatureNoThe time signature that was wanted, e.g. '4/4', '3/4' or '6/8'. Reported back in the answer so the caller can carry it to one of the alternatives. Nothing is written from it.4/4

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Previous value: -"The time signature that was wanted, e.g. '4/4', '3/4' or '6/8'. Reported back in the answer so the caller can carry it to one of the alternatives; nothing is written from it."New value: +"The time signature that was wanted, e.g. '4/4', '3/4' or '6/8'. Reported back in the answer so the caller can carry it to one of the alternatives. Nothing is written from it."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Added value: +"The time signature that was wanted, e.g. '4/4', '3/4' or '6/8'. Reported back in the answer so the caller can carry it to one of the alternatives; nothing is written from it."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds crucial behavioral context: it 'writes nothing and always reports failure' and explains why a silent no-op would be misleading. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to understand.

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 front-loaded summary, a returns line, and a note section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining the limitation, the failure behavior, or the alternatives. No filler or repeated schema content.

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 tool's unusual behavior—always failing on purpose—the description fully covers what the tool does, why it does it, what the caller gets back, and what to use instead. The presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage means no essential context is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers the single parameter with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds extra value by explaining that the signature is 'reported back in the answer so the caller can carry it to one of the alternatives' and emphasizing that 'nothing is written from it.'

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: 'Report that a time signature cannot be set here, and what to use instead.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like set_key_signature by framing it as a deliberate failure-reporting tool rather than an actual setting 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 names alternatives and gives conditions for choosing them: open_popover(kind='time') for interactive use, and write_score(method='musicxml') or export_musicxml for unattended writes. This gives an agent concrete routing guidance rather than leaving usage to inference.

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