+@knownissues
+
+Currently, the available combinations of arguments (after the standard
+@var{layout} and @var{props} arguments) to a markup command defined with
+@code{define-markup-command} are limited as follows.
+
+@table @asis
+@item (no argument)
+@itemx @var{list}
+@itemx @var{markup}
+@itemx @var{markup markup}
+@itemx @var{scm}
+@itemx @var{scm markup}
+@itemx @var{scm scm}
+@itemx @var{scm scm markup}
+@itemx @var{scm markup markup}
+@itemx @var{scm scm scm}
+@end table
+
+@noindent
+In the above table, @var{scm} represents native Scheme data types like
+@q{number} oder @q{string}.
+
+As an example, it is not possible to use a markup command @code{foo} with
+four arguments defined as
+
+@example
+#(define-markup-command (foo layout props
+ num1 str1 num2 str2)
+ (number? string? number? string?)
+ ...)
+@end example
+
+@noindent
+If you apply it as, say,
+
+@example
+\markup \foo #1 #"bar" #2 #"baz"
+@end example
+
+@cindex Scheme signature
+@cindex signature, Scheme
+@noindent
+@command{lilypond} complains that it cannot parse @code{foo} due to its
+unknown Scheme signature.
+