Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

edit_notes

Edit note properties by index, including position, duration, pitch, lyric, tuning, and vibrato, while preserving existing pitch curves in an OpenUtau project.

Instructions

Edit notes in place by index (position, duration, tone, lyric, tuning, vibrato); pitch curves are kept. / 番号で指定した音符をその場で編集します（位置・長さ・音高・歌詞・微調整・ビブラート）。ピッチ曲線は保持されます。

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>",
      "edits": "<edits>"
    },
    "name": "edit_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partYes
editsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that pitch curves are preserved through the edit, which is valuable behavior for a mutation. It omits whether null fields leave values untouched, whether multiple edits apply atomically, and how out-of-range indices are handled.

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?

Two compact bilingual sentences, front-loaded with the action and the editable field list, with no filler. The bilingual duplication appears to be this server's convention rather than padding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition should explain partial-update semantics, the part/edits structure, and validation behavior. Only pitch-curve preservation is covered.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported at 0%, and the top-level 'part' parameter has no description anywhere. The description lists field names but never explains the part/edits nesting, the index addressing within the edits array, or units beyond what field names imply.

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: edits notes in place addressed by index, and enumerates the editable fields (position, duration, tone, lyric, tuning, vibrato). The verb+resource is unambiguous, though it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling ustx_edit_notes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this instead of add_notes, delete_notes, or ustx_edit_notes; only an implicit 'in place' hint. Prerequisites such as an open project or a valid part/index range are not stated.

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