Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyMuseMCP

EasyMuseMCP

by Ranger013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Extract linked parts

musescore_extract_parts

Extracts individual instrument parts from a full MuseScore score, generating one .mscz file per instrument so each part can be edited or shared separately.

Instructions

Generate one .mscz per instrument/part from a full score.

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>"
    },
    "name": "musescore_extract_parts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesAbsolute path to the score file.
outDirNoOutput directory. Default: <score dir>/parts.

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?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey the key side effect (it writes one .mscz file per instrument/part, i.e. mutates disk), but says nothing about overwrite behavior, whether outDir must pre-exist, failure handling, or any dependency on a MuseScore install.

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 no waste; every clause (output artifact, cardinality, source input) earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema, no nesting), so little is strictly required. Still, for an unannotated file-producing tool, the description should say more about output naming, overwrite behavior, and required environment before an agent invokes it unattended.

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 coverage is 100% — both 'input' (absolute path) and 'outDir' (default <score dir>/parts) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further semantics about paths or defaults, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb (Generate) and a concrete artifact (.mscz per instrument/part) plus the source object (a full score). That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like musescore_compose or musescore_join, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 usage is implied by 'from a full score' — an agent can infer this applies when it holds a full score and needs per-part files — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing instruction.

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