Skip to main content
Glama
wspringer

lilypond-mcp

by wspringer
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

engrave_file

Convert LilyPond .ly files into cropped music notation assets (PDF, SVG, EPS, PNG) for placement in page-layout software.

Instructions

Engrave a LilyPond (.ly) source file into publication-quality music notation assets. Cropped assets are sized to the music, ready to place in page-layout software. Use PDF for InDesign placement (fonts embedded the way Adobe accepts, crop/bleed/trim/art boxes all defined); SVG has glyphs as outlines for the web; EPS embeds fonts in a form Ghostscript accepts but InDesign ignores. On failure, errors carries the LilyPond diagnostics, including line numbers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cropNoCrop assets to the music itself instead of a full page. Required for EPS; what you want for assets placed in a layout.
nameNoBasename for the assets; defaults to the source filename without .ly
sourceYesPath to the .ly file, relative to the project root or absolute
formatsNoAsset formats to generate. PDF is the format to place in InDesign (fonts embedded the way Adobe accepts, all PDF boxes defined); EPS embeds fonts in a form InDesign ignores.
previewNoAttach the preview PNG to the result as an image, so the engraving is visible inline without reading a file. Turn off for batch runs.
output_dirNoDirectory the generated assets are written to (created if missing)build
include_dirsNoDirectories searched by \include, e.g. a shared settings library

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
errorsNoLilyPond diagnostics when compilation fails
outputsYesAbsolute path per generated format
previewPngNoCropped PNG of the engraved music — read this file to inspect the result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / preview
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Attach the preview PNG to the result as an image, so the engraving is visible inline without reading a file. Turn off for batch runs.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers meaningful detail: cropped assets are sized to the music, format-specific font/box behavior is spelled out, and failure diagnostics are disclosed with LilyPond line numbers. It does not cover every side effect, but the key output behavior and failure mode are transparent.

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?

Four sentences, all functional: purpose, sizing behavior, format guidance, and error behavior. The description is front-loaded and avoids promotional filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description covers the central invocation decisions—format selection, cropping context, and failure diagnostics—without restating the schema. The only notable gap is not explicitly pointing to engrave_code for code-snippet workflows, which is minor.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, including defaults and the meaning of each format, so the description does not need to repeat them. It reinforces format choices but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Engrave') and resource ('a LilyPond (.ly) source file'), and clarifies the output type: publication-quality music notation assets. The explicit '.ly source file' scope also distinguishes it from the sibling tool engrave_code, which likely handles code strings.

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 gives concrete format-selection guidance: PDF for InDesign placement, SVG for web outlines, EPS for Ghostscript-compatible font embedding. It does not explicitly name when to use this tool instead of engrave_code or lilypond_version, but the file-focused purpose plus format recommendations provide clear usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wspringer/lilypond-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server