Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_phonemes

Retrieve the phonemes OpenUtau generates for a part to check pronunciation and verify per-note lyric timing, duration, and phoneme output.

Instructions

Phonemes OpenUtau produced for a part (note index, lyric, position, duration, phoneme, has_oto). Use it to check pronunciation. / パートについて OpenUtau が生成した音素一覧。発音の確認に使います。

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": {
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "list_phonemes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the returned fields (note index, lyric, position, duration, phoneme, has_oto), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, error behavior for an invalid part, or ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what it is before the use case; the bilingual repetition is conventional but doubles length without adding information. No filler or hedging otherwise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields is the most important contribution and it is present. The missing piece is how the 'part' argument is identified, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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?

One required parameter 'part' with 0% schema description coverage; the description repeats the word 'part' without clarifying whether it is an index, ID, or track-qualified reference. The description adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description names a concrete resource (the phoneme list OpenUtau generated for a part) and enumerates the fields returned, which distinguishes it clearly from list_notes or get_curve siblings. The verb is only implied by the tool name, but the resource and scope are specific.

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?

'Use it to check pronunciation' gives one concrete use case, which is implied guidance. There is no statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer (e.g., list_notes for raw notes), so alternatives remain inferential.

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