musescore-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_score_info

Extract basic metadata and structural information from a MuseScore file, including title, composer, key, time signature, tempo, part names, and measure count.

Instructions

Return basic metadata and structural info about a score.

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

Returns: Dict with title, composer, initial key, time signature, tempo, part names, and measure count.

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": "get_score_info"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly lists the return fields (title, composer, etc.), giving agents a clear picture of behavior. However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or has no side effects, which is a minor gap.

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 a clear purpose sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple metadata retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains both parameters and enumerates all return fields. The tool's simplicity is matched by adequate documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates. It explains 'score_b64: Base64-encoded score file' and 'input_suffix: Input extension, e.g. "mscz"', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's titles. The example for input_suffix is helpful.

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 'Return basic metadata and structural info about a score.' It specifies the action (return) and resource (score). The detailed list of returned fields distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_harmony or get_key_signature.

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 implies usage for retrieving metadata but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., get_key_signature for only key info). No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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