Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_voicebank

Fetch a voicebank’s info, oto sets, and alias count to inspect and verify available singing voice data before selecting it in OpenUtau.

Instructions

Details of a voicebank: info, oto sets and alias count. / 音源の詳細（情報、oto セット、エイリアス数）。

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": {
      "voicebank": "<voicebank>"
    },
    "name": "get_voicebank"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
voicebankYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the shape of the result (info, oto sets, alias count), which tells the agent what it is buying, but says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or whether the call can be expensive for large banks.

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?

Compact and front-loaded; the resource and its payload are stated immediately. The bilingual duplication is reasonable for a Japanese-origin tool, though it 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, so the brief enumeration of returned content is the only signal about the response, and it stops short of describing format or granularity. For a simple one-parameter read tool it is close to adequate, but the unresolved parameter identity keeps it from being complete.

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?

Only one parameter, 'voicebank', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about whether it expects a display name, folder path, or internal ID. That is the single most important ambiguity for invoking this tool correctly, and it is left unresolved.

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 resource (a voicebank) and enumerates what is returned: info, oto sets, and alias count. This distinguishes it from the sibling list_voicebanks, though the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'use this to get details'. It never says to call list_voicebanks first to discover valid voicebank identifiers, nor any prerequisite or alternative.

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