prev_staffMoves the cursor to the previous staff in a MuseScore score, enabling navigation between staves during editing or review.
Move cursor to the previous staff.
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": "prev_staff"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden and does not. It does not say what happens at the first staff (wrap, error, or stay put), whether the current selection or note input position is preserved, or whether this is a pure non-destructive navigation with no score mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. Every word is load-bearing given how little there is to say about an empty-schema navigation call.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, but it omits the boundary behavior that a previous-staff step genuinely needs. An agent can call it but cannot predict what occurs at the top of the staff list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Schema coverage is complete at 100% for an empty object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Move cursor to the previous staff.' An agent can tell it moves a cursor rather than performing an edit, and 'previous' separates it from next_staff without needing the schema. It does not explicitly name the sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb-plus-resource combination — it is clearly a cursor-navigation step used before acting on a staff. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the next_staff counterpart, and no prerequisites such as needing an open score or positioned cursor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.