Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyMuseMCP

EasyMuseMCP

by Ranger013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Check the MuseScore toolchain

musescore_doctor

Checks whether the MuseScore CLI binary is available and reports the installed version. Use it to verify command-line access before generating or exporting scores.

Instructions

Report whether the MuseScore CLI binary is available and which version is installed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "musescore_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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, and it does establish that this is a non-mutating availability/version check. However, it does not say what happens when the binary is missing (error vs. reported status), whether it is fast or costly, or anything about the shape of the report.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and the two facts reported; no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a no-input, no-output-schema diagnostic, the description covers the happy path but leaves the failure path and result format undocumented — the very things an agent checking toolchain health is likely to need. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could add or omit.

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 names a specific check ('report whether the MuseScore CLI binary is available') and the resource ('version installed'), which clearly separates it from the compose/render/edit siblings that all produce notation. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings, but the diagnostic framing is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is a preflight/diagnostic check, but the description never says when to call it (before rendering? on failure?) or what to do with the result. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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