Skip to main content
Glama

Notation syntax reference

musescore_notation_reference

Returns a compact score-notation cheat sheet. Read it before composing for the first time to learn the text notation needed to generate and edit MuseScore scores.

Instructions

Return the compact score-notation cheat sheet. Read this before composing for the first time.

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_notation_reference"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content and its compact size ("compact score-notation cheat sheet"), and the read-only, side-effect-free nature is strongly implied by "Return" and "Read this." However, it never explicitly states that it performs no mutation and has no external dependencies, which would matter for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the first states what is returned, the second states when to use it. The purpose is front-loaded and the guidance follows logically.

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 zero-parameter reference tool with no output schema, the description covers both what it returns and when to call it. It could go slightly further by hinting at what the cheat sheet covers (e.g., pitch, duration syntax), but an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly makes no attempt to describe inputs, leaving nothing ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ("Return") and a concrete resource ("compact score-notation cheat sheet"), which clearly identifies this as a documentation/reference tool rather than an action tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like musescore_compose and musescore_edit by implication of being the reference source, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

The sentence "Read this before composing for the first time" gives explicit when-to-use guidance tied to the composing workflow. There's no when-not guidance or named alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear enough for an agent to act on.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.