musescore-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

analyze_harmony

Analyze chord progressions and detect tonal center from MuseScore files. Outputs key, confidence, and chord details with Roman numerals.

Instructions

Analyze chord progressions and tonal center using music21.

Requires pip install music21.

Args: score_b64: Base64-encoded score file. input_suffix: Input extension, e.g. "mscz".

Returns: Dict with detected_key, confidence, and a list of chords [{offset, measure, chord, roman_numeral}, ...].

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": {
      "score_b64": "<score_b64>",
      "input_suffix": "<input_suffix>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_harmony"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score_b64`	Yes
`input_suffix`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (key, confidence, chords list) and prerequisite. Missing: error behavior, side effects (though likely read-only), or performance details.

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?

Very concise: two sentences for purpose, followed by bullet-style args and returns. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

Covers parameters and return shape. Missing: error handling, limitations, or performance notes. For a simple analysis tool with 2 params, it is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: score_b64 as 'Base64-encoded score file' and input_suffix as 'Input extension, e.g. "mscz".' This adds sufficient meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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?

The description clearly states 'Analyze chord progressions and tonal center using music21,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_key_signature or transpose, which focus on other aspects.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; only a prerequisite ('Requires pip install music21') is mentioned. No exclusions or context for selection.

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