Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_midi

Exports the current OpenUtau project as a MIDI file to a specified path, so melodies and timing can be reused in other music software.

Instructions

Export the project as a MIDI file. / プロジェクトを MIDI ファイルに書き出します。

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "export_midi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 discloses almost nothing: it does not say a file is written to disk, whether an existing file at 'path' is overwritten, what error occurs if the project is empty, or whether the path is a directory or full filename. Only the fact that the output is MIDI is conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the entire content is duplicated in Japanese, adding length without adding information. No waste beyond that, but also no structure beyond one line.

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 single-parameter filesystem-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left without the essentials: path format, overwrite behavior, and success/failure signals. The description is far too thin relative to what a caller must decide.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, and the description says nothing about it — no indication of whether it is a file path or directory, whether the .mid extension is required, or what path style is accepted. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb ('Export') and resource ('the project as a MIDI file'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. The MIDI format implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like export_wav and ust_export, though it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus export_wav or ust_export, nor any prerequisite such as a project needing to be open. The agent must infer everything from the format name alone.

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