musescore-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

transpose_by_interval

Shift a MuseScore score by a specified number of semitones up or down. Provide a base64-encoded score and receive the transposed version.

Instructions

Transpose a score by a fixed number of semitones via the MuseScore CLI.

Requires MuseScore 3.3+ with --score-transpose support.

Args: score_b64: Base64-encoded score file. input_suffix: Input extension, e.g. "mscz". semitones: Number of semitones to transpose (1–24). direction: "up" or "down".

Returns: Base64-encoded mscz of the transposed score.

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>",
      "semitones": "<semitones>"
    },
    "name": "transpose_by_interval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`score_b64`	Yes
`input_suffix`	Yes
`semitones`	Yes
`direction`	No	up

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Describes invoking MuseScore CLI and returning Base64 mscz, but with no annotations, it doesn't disclose error handling, side effects, or limitations such as file size constraints.

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?

Well-structured with summary, requirement note, and list of args. Concisely covers core info, though the requirement line could be slightly tighter.

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 existing output schema (not shown but indicated), description adequately covers purpose, requirements, and parameters. No major gaps for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

Input schema has no description coverage (0%), but the description compensates by documenting each parameter (score_b64, input_suffix, semitones range 1-24, direction up/down), adding meaning beyond 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?

Clearly states transposing a score by a fixed number of semitones via MuseScore CLI. Distinguishes from sibling tools like transpose_by_key which use key signatures.

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?

Mentions MuseScore 3.3+ requirement but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transpose_by_key or transpose_for_instrument. No exclusion criteria.

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