Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyMuseMCP

EasyMuseMCP

by Ranger013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Compose a score from text notation

musescore_compose

Build a real MuseScore score from compact text notation, write MusicXML, and render requested formats such as PDF, PNG, MIDI, or MP3 with measure and notation warnings.

Instructions

Build a real MuseScore score from compact text notation (see musescore_notation_reference). Writes MusicXML, then renders the requested formats with MuseScore. Returns output paths, a musical summary and any measure/notation warnings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "musescore_compose"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOutput basename (defaults to a slug of the title).
styleNoAbsolute path to a MuseScore .mss style file.
outDirNoAbsolute output directory. Default: <workspace>/musescore-studio/out/<name>.
sourceYesScore source in the notation DSL: header lines (title:, key:, time:, tempo:) followed by part blocks and note tokens such as "C5/4 D5/4 E5/2 |".
formatsNoFormats to export. Default: ["mscz","pdf","png"].
resolutionNoDPI for png/svg export. Default 130.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the pipeline (write MusicXML, then render formats) and the return payload (paths, musical summary, measure/notation warnings), which is meaningful. It omits overwrite behavior, whether rendering is slow/heavy, and any permission or failure conditions for a tool that clearly writes files.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then pipeline behavior, then return values. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return contents, which is exactly what an agent needs to know. For a 6-parameter write-and-render tool, the remaining gap is operational detail (overwrite semantics, typical duration), which is minor but non-zero.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (name, style, outDir, source, formats, resolution) is already documented in the schema. The description only adds that formats are 'requested' and source is text notation, without new syntax or default-behavior detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build a real MuseScore score') plus the input form ('compact text notation'), which separates it from musescore_edit/transpose/join siblings that operate on existing scores. It also names the companion musescore_notation_reference for the DSL. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with musescore_render, which the phrase 'renders the requested formats' partially overlaps with.

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 by the input shape: use this when you have text notation and need a score file. The pointer to musescore_notation_reference is genuinely useful guidance on input syntax. However, no explicit when-not or alternative routing (e.g. use musescore_render when a .mscz already exists) is given.

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