Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

export_wav

Render a project mixdown to a single WAV file or, with per_track set, one WAV per track for track-level editing and delivery.

Instructions

Render the mixdown to a WAV file, or one WAV per track (per_track=true). Can take minutes. / ミックスダウンを WAV に書き出します。per_track=true でトラックごとに書き出します。数分かかることがあります。

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_wav"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
per_trackNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does volunteer the important latency cue ('Can take minutes'), which is real added value. It says nothing about overwrite behavior, where files land relative to `path`, or whether the call blocks, which are the traits an agent most needs for a write operation.

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 output mode and the latency warning are front-loaded in two short sentences with no filler. It is only weakened by the full bilingual duplication, which doubles length without adding information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about what a successful export returns and how `path` is interpreted. The duration warning covers the main risk, but the file-location semantics are missing for a tool whose entire job is writing files.

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 0%, and the description compensates for the non-obvious parameter by explaining that per_track=true produces one WAV per track rather than a mixdown. The `path` parameter remains unexplained (output file vs directory in per-track mode), which keeps it below a 5.

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 gives a specific verb ('Render the mixdown') and resource ('to a WAV file'), and clarifies the alternate output mode (one WAV per track). That is enough to distinguish it from export_midi by format, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

It states the two output modes and warns the operation 'can take minutes', which implies when a caller should budget time, but it offers no explicit when-to-use versus export_midi or any precondition such as an open project.

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