Skip to main content
Glama

import_tracks

Import tracks from another project file into the open OpenUtau project, with an option to include tempo data.

Instructions

Import the tracks of another project file into the open project. / 別のプロジェクトファイルのトラックを現在のプロジェクトに読み込みます。

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": "import_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
import_tempoNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little: it does not say whether imported tracks are merged alongside existing tracks or replace them, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens if no project is open. For a mutating import it also omits whether importing tempo conflicts with the current project tempo.

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 core statement is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the bilingual duplication does not obscure the English meaning. It is appropriately sized but is concise at the cost of missing detail.

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?

Given a mutation with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the definition leaves too much unexplained for an agent to call it confidently. At minimum it should describe merge semantics and the meaning of import_tempo.

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 both parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never clarifies that 'path' is a path to a project file, and it never mentions 'import_tempo' at all, leaving the most decision-relevant option completely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Import the tracks of another project file') and states the target ('into the open project'), which distinguishes it from open_project or new_project. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary with ust_import and open_project.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative for merging a different format (e.g., ust_import). The phrase 'the open project' implies a project must already be open, which is the only contextual hint provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.