Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_voicebanks

Lists available OpenUtau voicebanks from Singers and AdditionalSingerPath, including IDs, names, authors, and default phonemizers, so callers can select the right singer.

Instructions

Voicebanks in the Singers folder and AdditionalSingerPath (id as OpenUtau uses it, name, author, default phonemizer). / Singers フォルダーと AdditionalSingerPath の音源一覧（OpenUtau と同じ ID）。

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": "list_voicebanks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the discovery scope and returned fields, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether results can be paginated, or how it relates to broader singer/voicebank concepts.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the core meaning in English. The Japanese translation usefully localizes the same information, though it does repeat the English content rather than adding new detail.

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 simple zero-argument listing tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the source locations and the fields returned. A minor gap is the lack of explicit distinction from list_singers and get_voicebank.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter behavior to clarify, and the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

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 clearly identifies the resource as voicebanks in the Singers folder and AdditionalSingerPath, and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, author, default phonemizer). It is specific, but does not explicitly distinguish this from the closely related siblings list_singers or get_voicebank.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as list_singers. The implied usage is simply to enumerate voicebanks, but the description does not help an agent choose between this and neighboring list tools.

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