Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Set Staff Mute

set_staff_mute

Mute or unmute a specific staff in a MuseScore score by staff number, letting you silence individual parts during playback or restore them.

Instructions

Mute or unmute 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>",
      "mute": "<mute>"
    },
    "name": "set_staff_mute"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
muteYesTrue to mute, False to unmute
staffYesStaff number (0-based)

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost nothing: it does not say whether mute affects playback, notation display, or export, whether the setting persists in the score file, or whether the change is undoable. Only the bidirectional nature (mute or unmute) is conveyed, which the schema already states.

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 zero padding and the operation front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the definition should explain what muting changes and whether it persists or is reversible. The description leaves all of that unspecified, so an agent cannot predict the effect of calling it.

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 index) and 'mute' (true/false) documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning such as range validation or how staff indices map to visible staves.

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 pair (mute/unmute) and a specific resource (a staff), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate from near-siblings such as set_instrument_sound, but the operation itself is clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives for controlling staff audio or visibility. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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