Retrieve details about the currently open score in the connected music notation app. Check its title, key, tempo, and other metadata to understand the active composition.
Get information about the score open in the connected application.
Requires an active connection (connect_to_musescore or connect_to_dorico).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defsAdded value: +{
+ "CommandResult": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / properties / result / $refAdded value: +"#/$defs/CommandResult"Output schema / properties / result / titleRemoved value: -"Result"Output schema / properties / result / typeRemoved value: -"string"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions the prerequisite of an active connection, which is a behavioral requirement. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or any other side effects, leaving the agent to infer from the word 'get'. With no annotations, this could be more explicit, but the tool is simple and the requirement is useful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, and the key prerequisite is stated immediately after the purpose. It earns a high score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no parameters and a defined output schema, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential usage context (active connection) and is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, and the baseline score of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about the currently open score in the connected application. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_measure_content, which target specific parts, though it does not explicitly name them. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that an active connection is required, citing the two connection tools. This provides clear context for when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when to prefer this over other info-retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.