Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EasyMuseMCP

EasyMuseMCP

by Ranger013
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Open in the MuseScore app

musescore_open

Open a score file in the MuseScore desktop app to view it or make manual edits, bridging AI-generated notation with GUI-based hand editing.

Instructions

Open a score in the MuseScore desktop app so the user can look at or hand-edit it.

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_open"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesAbsolute path to the score file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect — launching an external desktop application — but says nothing about requirements (app installed, valid absolute path), failure behavior, or whether the call blocks/returns anything.

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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler.

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 one-parameter launch tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is failure/prerequisite behavior for an external-app launch.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the absolute path requirement. The description adds no further semantics beyond 'score', making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: opens a score in the MuseScore desktop app, and adds the intent (viewing or hand-editing). This separates it reasonably from siblings like musescore_view and musescore_edit, though it doesn't name them 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 phrase 'so the user can look at or hand-edit it' implies when to reach for it, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not or alternative (e.g., musescore_view for in-chat viewing vs. opening the desktop app) is stated.

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