Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

launch_openutau

Starts OpenUtau, optionally loading a specified project, and opens that project in the running app when the bridge is active.

Instructions

Start OpenUtau (optionally with a project). If it is already running with the bridge, opens the project there. / OpenUtau を起動します（プロジェクト指定可）。起動済みならそのプロジェクトを開きます。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "launch_openutau"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important branch — reusing a running bridged instance rather than spawning a new one — but omits what happens when a running instance lacks the bridge, whether the call blocks until launch completes, or whether a GUI window is raised.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the optional argument, then the conditional behavior. The Japanese mirror is a deliberate localization rather than filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-optional-param launcher with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the essential decision (new launch vs. reuse existing instance). Only the unbridged-instance case and blocking semantics are missing.

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?

Only one parameter at 0% schema coverage, and the description does cover its meaning: the project is optional and is opened in the launched/already-running instance. Format expectations (absolute path, existing project file) remain unstated, which is the main 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Start OpenUtau') and clarifies the optional project argument. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling open_project, so an agent must infer whether to launch the app or merely open a project in an existing instance.

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?

The conditional sentence ('If it is already running with the bridge, opens the project there') implies usage context but never says when to prefer this over open_project or openutau_status. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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