ScanSing: sheet music to MusicXML

Label notes

label_notes

A new recognition whose MusicXML has each printed note's name written under it as a lyric line of its own, as method books print it for beginners: a chord is named top to bottom, sung words stay where they are. letters and solfege-fixed name the pitch; movable-do, degrees and kalimba count from the key's tonic. The returned id is the labelled result (use it with export_score for a printable PDF, extract_part, transpose_score…); the original labelledFrom stays as it was. Nothing is recognised again, no pages are charged.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No	the key movable-do, degrees and kalimba count from, e.g. 'E minor'; default: read off the music. degrees needs major or minor: if the engine cannot tell, it says which key to state
`scheme`	No	letters (C♯, B♭), solfege-fixed (Do…Si, Do is always C), movable-do (Do is the tonic), degrees (1…7 of the scale, ♭3) or kalimba (the tines' numbers)	letters
`save_to`	No	local path to write the MusicXML to (stdio only)
`recognition_id`	Yes	id returned by recognize_sheet_music, e.g. rec_…

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "the key movable-do, degrees and kalimba count from, e.g. 'E minor'; default: read off the music. degrees needs major or minor: if the engine cannot tell, it says which key to state",
+  "title": "Key"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / scheme / description

Previous value: -"letters (C♯, B♭) or solfege-fixed (Do…Si, Do is always C)"New value: +"letters (C♯, B♭), solfege-fixed (Do…Si, Do is always C), movable-do (Do is the tonic), degrees (1…7 of the scale, ♭3) or kalimba (the tines' numbers)"

AddedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds real behavioral context: a NEW recognition is produced, the source `labelledFrom` is left unchanged, nothing is re-recognised, and no pages are charged. The billing note is unusually valuable. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens for an unlabelable note.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with the core behavior, but the 'as method books print it for beginners' simile and the elongated sentence structure add words that don't help an agent decide or invoke. The parenthetical tool list is useful; the rest is denser than needed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description correctly focuses on what the return means — the new `id` is the labelled result and `labelledFrom` is the original — and covers the key/scheme interplay and the save_to write path. Complete enough to invoke confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the coupling between `scheme` and `key` — movable-do, degrees and kalimba count from the key's tonic while letters and solfege-fixed name absolute pitch. That relationship is not stated in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and output: a new recognition whose MusicXML carries each printed note's name as a lyric line, with chord naming order and lyric preservation spelled out. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming the downstream tools it feeds (export_score, extract_part, transpose_score), though the opening sentence is indirect prose rather than a plain 'creates a labelled copy of a score' statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the follow-up tooling ('use it with export_score for a printable PDF...') and the clarification that the original `labelledFrom` is untouched, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no alternative labelling tool is named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ScanSing: sheet music to MusicXML tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?