Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_track

Deletes a specified track and all its parts from an OpenUtau project, letting you clean up a song arrangement by removing unwanted vocal or instrumental tracks.

Instructions

Remove a track and its parts. / トラックとそのパートを削除します。

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": {
      "track": "<track>"
    },
    "name": "remove_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trackYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and only discloses one trait: the delete cascades to the track's parts. It says nothing about irreversibility, whether the change is saved to the project file, or what happens if the track id is invalid — all material for a destructive mutation.

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 front-loaded first clause is tight and useful. The second sentence is a verbatim Japanese translation that adds no new information for an agent, consuming half the description without earning it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a destructive one-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter type. The description covers only the cascade side effect, so an agent lacks the reversibility, identifier, and failure-mode context needed to call it safely.

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?

The single 'track' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must clarify whether it is an index, a UUID, or a name. It adds nothing beyond the noun 'track', leaving the identifier format ambiguous for the caller.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a track'), and adds scope with 'and its parts', which distinguishes it from a part-level removal such as remove_part. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus remove_part or update_track, no prerequisite (e.g. project open, track exists), and no warning about when not to use it. The only cue is the tool name, which leaves routing to inference.

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