Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_tempo

Deletes a tempo change at a specified tick other than tick 0, so you can correct timing edits while keeping the initial tempo unchanged.

Instructions

Remove the tempo change at a tick (not tick 0). / 指定ティックのテンポ変更を削除します（tick 0 は不可）。

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": {
      "tick": "<tick>"
    },
    "name": "remove_tempo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tickYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 tick-0 restriction, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether removal is destructive/irreversible, what happens if no tempo change exists at the tick, whether the project is auto-saved, or whether later tempo events are affected.

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 parallel sentences with the key constraint in parentheses, front-loaded and waste-free. The bilingual duplication is a formatting convention rather than padding, though it does double the token count for identical 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 one-parameter, non-annotated mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and the tick-0 limit, but leaves out error conditions and reversibility. It is adequate to attempt a call, not to predict its outcome.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving the tick's meaning (the position of a tempo change) and a validity constraint (non-zero). It adds nothing about units, resolution, or how to find a valid tick beyond that.

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: remove the tempo change at a given tick. It is clearly distinct from a set/add operation, though it never names set_tempo or ustx_set_tempo as the counterpart, so the sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation itself plus one real exclusion: tick 0 cannot be used. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over set_tempo, no prerequisite that a tempo change must already exist at that tick, and no guidance on what error to expect otherwise.

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