Skip to main content
Glama
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99

Show Score

show_score
Read-only

Display the current score as rendered sheet music in an interactive viewer to visually verify your edits, with optional measure range selection.

Instructions

Show the current score as rendered sheet music in an interactive viewer. Use it to check your edits visually. Tuplet brackets and ties are not drawn. Hosts without MCP Apps support only receive a short text summary; use get_score for the note data.

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": "show_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
last_measureNoLast measure to show (1-based). Defaults to the end of the score.
first_measureNoFirst measure to show (1-based)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so well: it discloses rendering fidelity limits (tuplet brackets and ties are not drawn) and host-dependent fallback behavior. It stops short of describing viewer interactivity or whether the view persists, but the critical caveats are stated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool renders, followed by use case, caveats, and the alternative. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only viewer with only two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, visual limitations, host support, and the sibling alternative – nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 first_measure and last_measure are already documented; the description adds no extra meaning about ranges or defaults. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Show the current score as rendered sheet music in an interactive viewer") and explicitly contrasts with get_score ("note data"), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without reading either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete use case ("check your edits visually"), names the alternative for note data (get_score), and explains the degraded-mode condition (hosts without MCP Apps get only a text summary), covering both when to use and when not to expect full output.

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