Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyMuseMCP

EasyMuseMCP

by Ranger013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Join scores end to end

musescore_join

Concatenate two or more MuseScore scores with the same part layout to build medleys or append sections, then export the joined result in chosen formats.

Instructions

Concatenate two or more scores that share the same part layout, e.g. to build a medley or append a second section.

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": {
      "inputs": "<inputs>"
    },
    "name": "musescore_join"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOutput basename.
inputsYesAbsolute paths, in order.
outDirNoOutput directory.
formatsNoDefault ["mscz","pdf","png"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shared-part-layout prerequisite, but says nothing about what happens when layouts mismatch (error vs. silent adaptation), whether existing output files are overwritten, or that the call writes new files to disk.

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 precondition and use cases packed in; no filler and nothing redundant.

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?

For a file-producing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and intent adequately, and the schema handles naming, ordering, and output formats. Minor gaps around failure behavior and overwrite semantics remain.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including ordering and default formats. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('concatenate') and resource ('two or more scores'), plus the key precondition that they must share the same part layout. The medley/append examples make the operation's intent unambiguous and clearly distinguish it from compose, edit, and extract_parts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-to-use contexts ('build a medley or append a second section') and a gating condition (shared part layout). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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