Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Next Element

next_element

Advances the score cursor to the next element, enabling sequential navigation through notes and other score items during MuseScore editing.

Instructions

Move cursor to the next element.

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": "next_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the cursor wraps at the end of the score, whether an empty score or no selection causes a no-op or error, whether it requires an active selection to have meaning, or what the response contains. For a state-mutating cursor operation this is a substantial gap.

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?

One short, front-loaded imperative sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter command, though it is thin enough that a clause on boundary behavior would have earned its place.

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?

Although the tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential behavioral facts for a cursor-advancing command in a stateful editor: boundary/end-of-score behavior, effect on selection, and how it interacts with the navigation siblings. An agent would have to call it blind to learn its semantics.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no schema meaning the description needs to compensate for. It does not need to explain any inputs.

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 states a specific verb (move) and resource (cursor) with a clear target (next element), which distinguishes it from the sibling prev_element. It is however slightly ambiguous about what an 'element' is, since siblings suggest notes, rests, text, and other score objects share this cursor namespace.

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 implied by the pair with prev_element and by navigation siblings like go_to_measure and get_cursor_info, but the description never says when to prefer this over jumping directly to a measure or staff. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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