Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_notes

Deletes notes by index from a specified part; omit indices to remove all notes in that part.

Instructions

Delete notes by index; no indices = delete all notes in the part. / 番号で音符を削除します。indices を省略するとパートの全音符を削除します。

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": {
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "delete_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partYes
indicesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the highest-risk behavior — that the operation silently escalates from targeted deletion to a bulk delete of the entire part when `indices` is null — but says nothing about irreversibility, undo, behavior on out-of-range indices, or whether a missing part errors out.

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?

The destructive default is front-loaded in the first clause, which is the right ordering. The full bilingual duplication roughly doubles the token cost for an otherwise two-idea message, which keeps it short of a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The core semantics and the dangerous default are covered, and no output schema exists to explain. For an unannotated destructive tool, though, the definition omits error behavior, index validation, and whether deletions are reversible.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the null/omitted semantics of `indices`, but the `part` parameter is never defined (integer id vs. index, and where to obtain it), and it is unclear whether note indices are 0-based, per-part, or global.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete notes by index') plus an explicit scope rule (omitting indices clears the whole part). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'ustx_delete_notes', so the agent cannot tell from the description which of the two variants to pick.

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 supplies one genuinely useful usage rule: leave out `indices` to wipe every note in the part. Beyond that it gives no when-to-use versus when-not context and never mentions the near-identical `ustx_delete_notes` sibling, leaving the selection decision to inference.

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