Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

close_openutau

Exit the OpenUtau application safely, refusing when unsaved changes exist unless force=true discards them.

Instructions

Close OpenUtau. Refuses if there are unsaved changes unless force=true (force discards them). / OpenUtau を終了します。未保存の変更がある場合は force=true が必要です（変更は破棄されます）。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "close_openutau"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the refusal condition (unsaved changes) and explicitly warns that force discards those changes, which is the key destructive risk. It does not describe the return value or what happens to the process on success, leaving a small 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the guard and the override. The bilingual duplication doubles length but is a deliberate convention for a Japanese-language tool, not padding.

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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema, single-parameter tool, the essential risk information is present. Only the success behavior (return payload, whether the process termination blocks) is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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%, so the description must define the single parameter, and it does: force is the override for the unsaved-changes guard and its effect is destructive (changes discarded). This is meaning the bare boolean in the schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Close OpenUtau') with no ambiguity, and is trivially separable from the launch_openutau sibling. An agent knows exactly what the call does before opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional context: the call refuses when there are unsaved changes, and force=true is the escape hatch. It does not name an alternative course of action (e.g. saving via another tool first), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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