Retrieve the content of a specific measure and staff from a live music score, using measure number and optional staff index.
Select one measure of one staff in the live score and report it.
Args: measure: Measure number (1-indexed). staff: Staff index (0-indexed, default: 0).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| staff | No | ||
| measure | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'select and report' without stating that this is a read-only operation, whether a live connection is required, or what happens for invalid measure/staff indices.
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, front-loads the action, and uses a clean two-bullet format for parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
For a simple getter with an output schema present, the description adequately covers inputs and the general result. However, it omits usage prerequisites such as an active live-score connection and does not clarify side-effect-free behavior, which is more noticeable given the absence of annotations.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining measure is 1-indexed, staff is 0-indexed and defaults to 0. This adds critical semantic detail that the bare schema does not provide.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Select one measure of one staff in the live score and report it.' This makes the tool's core purpose clear and distinguishes it from siblings like get_live_score_info, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'in the live score' gives some context that this operates on the currently connected live score, implying use when a user needs content from a specific measure. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over read_passage or other reading tools, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.