Skip to main content
Glama
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99

Set Tempo

set_tempo

Sets a tempo marking in quarter-note beats per minute at the cursor or start of a chosen measure, so you can control the score's playback speed.

Instructions

Set the tempo with a tempo marking (in quarter-note beats per minute) at the current cursor position, or at the start of the given measure.

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": {
      "bpm": "<bpm>"
    },
    "name": "set_tempo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bpmYesTempo in quarter-note beats per minute (e.g. 120)
measureNoMeasure number (1-based) to place the tempo at. Defaults to the cursor position.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a tempo marking is created at the cursor or measure start, but is silent on what happens if a tempo marking already exists there (overwrite vs. insert), whether the change is undoable, and any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One well-formed sentence with no filler; the BPM unit and the placement options are all front-loaded in a single pass.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, units, and placement adequately. The only meaningful omission is overwrite/conflict behavior when a tempo marking already exists at the target position.

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%, so both bpm and measure are already documented in the schema, including the 1-based convention and the cursor default. The description restates the BPM unit and the measure-or-cursor rule without adding new format or constraint details, matching the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (Set) + resource (the tempo) + unit (quarter-note BPM) + placement rule (cursor or start of the given measure). This cleanly separates it from siblings like set_time_signature or set_measure_number, which operate on different score elements.

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?

The description explains the two placement modes, which gives implicit usage context, but never states when to reach for this tool over adjacent ones (e.g. time signature or song structure changes), nor any prerequisites such as a score being open or a selection existing.

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