Skip to main content
Glama
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99

Add Lyrics

add_lyrics

Adds lyric syllables to consecutive notes starting at the current cursor position in MuseScore, with an optional verse selector.

Instructions

Add lyrics to consecutive notes starting from the current cursor position.

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": {
      "lyrics": "<lyrics>"
    },
    "name": "add_lyrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verseNoVerse number (0-based, default is 0 for first verse)
lyricsYesList of lyric syllables to add (e.g. ["Hel", "lo", "world"])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: whether existing lyrics are overwritten, what happens when there are fewer notes than syllables, whether the operation is undoable, or what confirms success. Only the starting anchor point is described.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the anchoring constraint is stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves behavior underspecified rather than merely concise.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not cover overwrite semantics, failure modes when the cursor is not on notes, or result reporting. The fully documented schema helps for parameters, but the behavioral picture remains too thin for safe invocation.

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% and the schema already documents both 'lyrics' (with an example) and 'verse' (0-based default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the positional anchoring of the lyric list but says nothing about 'verse' or how list length maps onto note count.

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 ('Add lyrics') plus the precise insertion target: consecutive notes from the current cursor position. That scope distinguishes it from neighbors like add_text or add_rehearsal_mark, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: 'starting from the current cursor position' hints that the cursor must be positioned over notes first, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement, and no guidance on choosing this over add_text.

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