musescore-mcp

by strongbeen04

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

export_png_pages

Export each page of a MuseScore score as separate PNG images. Adjust DPI and trim whitespace for customized output.

Instructions

Export each page of a score as a PNG image.

Args: score_b64: Base64-encoded score file. input_suffix: Input extension, e.g. "mscz". dpi: Output resolution in dots per inch (1–2400, default 150). trim: If True, trim whitespace borders (0 px margin).

Returns: List of base64-encoded PNG strings, one per page, in order.

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": "export_png_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score_b64`	Yes
`input_suffix`	Yes
`dpi`	No
`trim`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output (list of base64 PNGs per page in order) and mentions a trim option to remove whitespace. However, it could disclose more about performance or file size limits.

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 compact, uses a clear docstring format, and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given there is an output schema (though not shown), the description explains the return type as a list of base64 strings. It covers the essential aspects of a conversion tool, though could mention page ordering or all pages guarantee.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: score_b64 (Base64 score), input_suffix (extension like 'mscz'), dpi (1-2400, default 150), trim (default false). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Export each page of a score as a PNG image', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_score or export_parts by focusing on page-by-page PNG output.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is implied but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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