Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyMuseMCP

EasyMuseMCP

by Ranger013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Read score metadata

musescore_inspect

Extract score metadata such as title, composer, key, time signature, tempo, part list, page/measure count, and duration from a score file.

Instructions

Read title, composer, key, time signature, tempo, part list, page/measure count and duration from a score file.

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_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesAbsolute path to the score file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only operation and lists the returned data fields, but it omits failure behavior (missing file, corrupt/unsupported format) and whether results are cached or computed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated field list is dense but each item conveys real return-value information. Slightly long as a list, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the enumerated field list effectively documents what an agent gets back, which is the key missing piece for a read tool. Only the lack of error/permission behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter (input, an absolute file path) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, 3 is appropriate; the description adds no path syntax or format hints beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (read) and enumerates exactly what metadata is retrieved: title, composer, key, time signature, tempo, part list, page/measure count, duration. This is clearly a read-only inspection tool, distinguishable from siblings like musescore_edit, musescore_transpose, or musescore_render.

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 read-only metadata framing (e.g., inspect before editing or rendering), but the description never states when to prefer this over siblings such as musescore_open or musescore_notation_reference, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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