Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Add Instrument

add_instrument

Add a new staff or instrument to a MuseScore score by specifying its instrument ID.

Instructions

Add a new staff/instrument to the score.

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": {
      "instrument_id": "<instrument_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_instrument"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instrument_idYesID of the instrument to add

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a mutating operation, where the new staff is inserted, whether instrument_id must reference an existing instrument, or what happens on an invalid ID; only the bare action is conveyed.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps found in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify insertion behavior, required state, and failure modes; none of that is present. A capable agent could still call it, but several behavioral questions remain unanswered.

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% with a single parameter already documented as "ID of the instrument to add". The description adds no additional meaning such as ID format or validation rules, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Add a new staff/instrument to the score"), which is understandable on its own and loosely distinguishes it from siblings like set_instrument_sound or add_note. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those alternatives, but the core action is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as set_instrument_sound, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., whether a selection or cursor position must exist first). The agent must infer usage entirely from the sentence.

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