Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Set Instrument Sound

set_instrument_sound

Changes the sound assigned to an instrument on a specified staff by setting its instrument ID, enabling timbre swaps in MuseScore scores.

Instructions

Change the sound of an instrument on a staff.

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": {
      "staff": "<staff>",
      "instrument_id": "<instrument_id>"
    },
    "name": "set_instrument_sound"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
staffYesStaff number (0-based)
instrument_idYesID of the new instrument sound

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 bears the full behavioral burden. 'Change' implies mutation, but the description does not say whether the change is reversible, what happens to notes already written for that instrument, whether the instrument must already exist, or what the response contains. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a notable 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient concision.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is structurally simple (two required params, flat schema, no output schema), so modest description is defensible. But with zero annotations on a mutating operation, the definition should disclose more about preconditions and effects to be fully complete.

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 both 'staff' (0-based number) and 'instrument_id' documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb+resource pairing ('Change the sound of an instrument on a staff') that clearly identifies the operation and its scope. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'add_instrument', however, leaving ambiguity about whether this modifies an existing instrument or creates a new sound slot.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as 'add_instrument'. The only hint is the word 'instrument', implying one must already exist on the staff, which the agent must infer.

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