Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyMuseMCP

EasyMuseMCP

by Ranger013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Edit an existing score

musescore_edit

Apply ordered measure- and element-level edits to an existing MuseScore score, enabling targeted fixes without rewriting the whole piece.

Instructions

Modify a score that already exists (any format MuseScore can open), at measure or element level. Operations run in order. Use this for fixes to an existing file instead of re-writing the whole piece.

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": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "musescore_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOutput basename.
inputYesAbsolute path to the score file.
styleNoAbsolute path to a .mss style file.
outDirNoOutput directory. Default: <score dir>/out.
formatsNoDefault ["mscz","pdf","png"].
operationsYesOrdered list of operations. Supported `op` values: set_metadata {title?,subtitle?,composer?,lyricist?} · set_tempo {tempo,measure?} · set_key {key,measure?} · set_time {time,measure?} transpose {semitones,from?,to?} · delete_measures {from,to} · duplicate_measures {from,to,times?} · append_measures {count} add_lyrics {text,staff?,verse?,part?} · set_instrument {instrument,part?} · set_systems {measures}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that operations are applied in order, but it does not state whether the input file is modified in place or left untouched (the outDir default of '<score dir>/out' implies a copy, but that is schema inference, not description disclosure), nor what happens on an invalid measure range or a mid-list failure.

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 with no filler, and the most important constraint (editing an existing file rather than regenerating) is stated up front. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

This is a multi-operation mutation tool with eleven op types and no output schema, so the description should at minimum say what comes back (generated file paths/format list) and what the default output behavior is. Ordering semantics are covered, but return values and failure behavior are not, leaving an agent to guess after invocation.

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 effectively 100%: every top-level field is documented and the operations array spells out each op's fields. The description adds one genuinely useful datum ('any format MuseScore can open' for input) but nothing about how operations compose, ordering effects, or optional field defaults. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Modify') and resource ('a score that already exists'), plus the granularity ('measure or element level') and the accepted input range ('any format MuseScore can open'). It conceptually contrasts with re-writing the whole piece, but never names the obvious sibling musescore_compose (or musescore_transpose, which overlaps with the built-in 'transpose' op), so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

The line 'Use this for fixes to an existing file instead of re-writing the whole piece' gives one real routing rule against re-composition. However, there are no exclusions and no mention of when to prefer the dedicated siblings musescore_transpose or musescore_compose over the corresponding operations here, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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