Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MuseScore MCP Server

MuseScore MCP Server

by ghchen99
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Song Structure

song_structure

Analyze a drum staff to outline song sections, played bar counts, recurring grooves, and fills for a structure page, and return suggested rows with musical names.

Instructions

Outline the song for a structure page: the sections (from the rehearsal marks) with how many bars each lasts as played (repeats counted), the grooves in it (bars that recur, named Groove A, B... with the drums they use; hi-hat openings, crashes and ghost notes don't make a new groove) and the fills (bars that don't recur). Each section's count is its length in fours as drummers count it (6 -> '4+2', 12 -> '3x4', bars before the first groove bar counted on their own: '2+4+2'); bars excluded from the bar count (a count-in) are left out. suggested_rows can go to set_song_structure as they are, but give the grooves and fills musical names first (e.g. 'Verse shuffle', 'Tom fill into chorus').

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": "song_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
staffNoStaff to analyse (0-based). Defaults to the first drum staff.
toleranceNoHow similar (0-1, share of identical hits) bars must be to share a groove name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses important rules: repeats counted, recurring bars grouped as grooves, non-recurring bars as fills, count-in bars excluded, and groove naming before set_song_structure. It still does not explicitly state read-only status or side effects, so it is rich but not fully complete.

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?

The first clause front-loads the purpose, and the remaining sentences are information-dense. The single long paragraph and nested parentheticals make it harder to scan than necessary, but little is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return concepts; it does define sections/count, grooves, fills, and suggested_rows. It does not fully specify the shape of returned objects or error behavior, but it is largely complete for a complex analysis tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so staff and tolerance are already documented there; the description does not add syntax or constraints beyond that. It mentions recurring bars conceptually but does not explain the tolerance parameter, leaving the baseline score appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Outline the song for a structure page') and enumerates the outputs: sections from rehearsal marks, grooves, and fills. It does not explicitly position itself against nearby tools such as find_groove_sections, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'for a structure page' and the downstream note that suggested_rows can go to set_song_structure after naming. It does not state when to choose this over alternatives like find_groove_sections or find_repeated_measures.

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