Skip to main content
Glama
wspringer

lilypond-mcp

by wspringer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Engrave LilyPond File

engrave_file
Idempotent

Engrave LilyPond .ly source files into cropped PDF, SVG, EPS, or PNG assets for page layout, with line-numbered errors on failure.

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.

  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?

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them with failure behavior ('errors' carries LilyPond diagnostics including line numbers), crop semantics, and the preview PNG being attached inline — real behavioral context. It stops short of stating runtime cost or overwrite behavior of output_dir.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then format-selection rationale, then failure behavior — every sentence carries distinct information with no filler or repetition. Sized appropriately for a tool with multiple output formats and layout-software considerations.

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?

With a 7-parameter schema fully described and an output schema present, the description supplies exactly the missing layer: format tradeoffs and error reporting. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without opening the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds meaning not in the schema, notably that SVG glyphs are outlines for web use and the font-embedding distinction between PDF and EPS. It says nothing extra about name, output_dir, or include_dirs resolution beyond their schema text.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete verb and resource ('Engrave a LilyPond (.ly) source file') and states the output class ('publication-quality music notation assets'), which is far more specific than the title alone. The phrase 'source file' implicitly separates it from the sibling engrave_code, but the distinction is never made explicit.

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?

It gives strong, actionable guidance on which output format to choose and why (PDF for InDesign, SVG outlines for web, EPS for Ghostscript but not InDesign), plus the crop and preview conditions. It does not tell the agent when to prefer engrave_file over engrave_code or when to call lilypond_version, which is the one routing gap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools