Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

note_to_midi

Convert note names such as C4 into MIDI numbers (C4 = 60) to map musical notes to MIDI values in OpenUtau workflows.

Instructions

Note name to MIDI number (C4 = 60). / 音名を MIDI 番号に変換します（C4 = 60）。

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": {
      "note": "<note>"
    },
    "name": "note_to_midi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

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 are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the octave convention (C4 = 60), which is genuinely useful non-obvious behavior, but it says nothing about accepted input formats (sharps/flats, octave range) or error behavior on unparseable names.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the conversion rule and its example come first. The only redundancy is the bilingual restatement, which is intentional but duplicates the same content.

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 trivial one-parameter converter with an output schema, the description covers the essential mapping and convention. It still leaves the accepted note-name grammar and invalid-input behavior undefined, which are the main things an agent could get wrong.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single `note` string parameter, so the description must compensate. The example 'C4' usefully establishes the expected note-name format, but whether accidentals like C#4 or Bb3 are accepted is left unstated.

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: converts a note name into a MIDI number, and the direction is unambiguous against the inverse sibling midi_to_note. It stops short of naming the sibling or scoping the accepted note-name domain, but the operation itself is crisp.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer midi_to_note, and no statement of what to do with an invalid or out-of-range note name. Usage is only inferable from the conversion itself.

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