Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

midi_to_note

Converts MIDI note numbers to standard note names, such as 60 to C4, for melody and pitch editing in OpenUtau projects.

Instructions

MIDI number to note name (60 = C4). / MIDI 番号を音名に変換します（60 = C4）。

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": {
      "midi": "<midi>"
    },
    "name": "midi_to_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
midiYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output convention via the '60 = C4' example (scientific pitch notation with octave), which is genuinely useful behavior, but it says nothing about valid MIDI range (0-127), out-of-range behavior, or that the operation is a pure read-only transformation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the entire statement is duplicated in Japanese, doubling the text with zero additional information for an English-reading agent. Efficient content, wasteful packaging.

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-parameter pure conversion with an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Purpose, direction, and example mapping are all covered; only input range validation and the inverse-tool relationship 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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies the input as a MIDI number and pins down the convention with an example value. It stops short of stating the accepted range, which is the remaining 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 and resource ('MIDI number to note name') and anchors it with a concrete example mapping (60 = C4). It does not mention the obvious inverse sibling note_to_midi, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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-to-use guidance, and the natural confusion point, the inverse tool note_to_midi, is never acknowledged. The purpose implies its own use case, but the agent gets no routing help.

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