Skip to main content
Glama
erno-szabados

Csound MCP Server

by erno-szabados
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools target completely distinct synthesis domains: one generates pitched sawtooth-based notes with full ADSR control, the other generates percussion via a pitch-enveloped sine. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools follow the same synthesize_verb_noun pattern, which is consistent. The noun modifiers differ in specificity (sawtooth_lead_bass vs kick_drum), but the overall convention is uniform.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels very thin for what appears to be a Csound synthesis toolkit. A synthesis server would naturally expect more generators (e.g., pads, plucks, snare, hi-hats, noise, additive/PM synthesis), making 2 tools under-scoped.

    Completeness2/5

    The server covers two synthesis archetypes but leaves major gaps—no percussion beyond kick (no snare, hi-hat, clap), no pad/ambient generator, no general-purpose note/synth tool, and no ability to layer or render composed arrangements. An agent needing common synthesis tasks will hit dead ends.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With NO annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by documenting the return value (absolute path to .wav file) and providing rich per-parameter behavioral context (attack hits, decays, releases). However, it could add detail about preconditions, edge cases, or failure behavior that would further improve transparency.

    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?

    The description is well-structured with a clear intro, per-parameter sections, and a returns line. It's substantial in length but every sentence earns its place by providing actionable range mappings. A minor deduction for the Args-style structure using Python docstring conventions which is slightly verbose but remains scannable.

    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 complex 8-parameter synthesis tool with zero schema coverage, descriptions and no annotations, this is remarkably complete. It provides usage examples, parameter ranges, and return value documentation. An output schema exists but the description still clarifies the logical return ('absolute path'). Could be slightly more complete with failure/validation behavior but is strong overall.

    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?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate for the 8 undocumented parameters. It does this exceptionally well, providing range-based guidance for pitch, cutoff_hz, attack, decay, sustain, and release with concrete examples mapping to sound types (e.g., '0-10: Instant hit (Plucks, Kicks)'). This significantly exceeds what the raw schema would convey.

    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?

    The description clearly states it generates a tone using a subtractive sawtooth oscillator and lowpass filter, explicitly naming the purpose ('synthesizer Basses, Leads, and Plucks'). The verb 'Generate' + specific resource (sawtooth oscillator + lowpass filter) is precise, and the name itself differentiates from sibling (synthesize_kick_drum) by specifying the waveform type.

    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 description provides instrument categories (Basses, Leads, Plucks) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. the sibling synthesize_kick_drum. It implies usage through sound-character descriptions in parameter ranges but never names the alternative. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance is given.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the synthesis method (Sine oscillator + pitch envelope), describes the return value (absolute path to .wav file), and explains parameter effects (punch, decay, drive behaviors). It could add details about execution time, file format specifics beyond .wav, or side effects, but covers the essential behavioral contract well.

    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?

    The description is well-structured with clear Args/Returns sections and organized parameter blocks with range examples. Each parameter entry is dense with useful information. It's longer than minimal but every line serves a purpose - no filler. The range formatting is slightly verbose but aids comprehension.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Despite an output schema being present, the description still explains the return value (path to generated .wav). All 5 parameters are semantically documented with practical guidance. The tool is moderate complexity (sound synthesis with musical nuance) and the description covers the musical intent, technical mechanism, and expected output fully. No significant gaps remain.

    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?

    With 0% schema description coverage, the description must fully compensate, and it does impressively. Each parameter (fundamental_hz, punch, decay, drive) gets detailed semantic ranges with concrete value brackets and musical interpretations. The output_filename is self-explanatory. This exceeds the baseline compensation required for low coverage.

    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?

    The description clearly states 'Generate a classic analog-style kick drum using a Sine oscillator with a pitch envelope' - a specific verb+resource+method. It distinguishes from the sibling synthesize_sawtooth_lead_bass by specifying Sine oscillator and kick drum specifically, making the purpose unique and clear.

    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 description provides concrete parameter ranges with musical context (0-50 soft acoustic, 100-150 punchy EDM/House kick, etc.), giving clear guidance on how to craft different sounds. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over the sibling sawtooth lead bass tool, though the distinct purposes make this somewhat implicit.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

musmcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

musmcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/erno-szabados/musmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server