musescore-mcp

by strongbeen04

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

create_from_musicxml

Creates a MuseScore .mscz file from a MusicXML string, enabling integration of externally generated MusicXML.

Instructions

Convert a MusicXML string into a MuseScore .mscz file.

Useful for creating MuseScore files from externally generated MusicXML.

Args: musicxml: MusicXML content as a UTF-8 string.

Returns: Base64-encoded mscz file.

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": {
      "musicxml": "<musicxml>"
    },
    "name": "create_from_musicxml"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`musicxml`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the conversion action and return format (Base64-encoded mscz file). It does not mention error handling for invalid input, but for a simple conversion tool, the behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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?

The description is concise, with three short sentences covering purpose, use case, and return value. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description covers all essential aspects: input, output, and purpose. The output schema is described verbally as 'Base64-encoded mscz file', which is sufficient given the simplicity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema provides no description for the 'musicxml' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying it is 'MusicXML content as a UTF-8 string', clarifying that it expects content, not a file path, and the encoding.

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 the tool converts a MusicXML string into a MuseScore .mscz file. The verb 'convert' and specific input/output resources differentiate it from sibling tools like midi_to_score or convert_score.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly mentions it is useful for creating MuseScore files from externally generated MusicXML, indicating the appropriate use case. It does not discuss when to avoid using it or name alternatives, but the context is clear.

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