Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

search_oto

Find matching oto.ini aliases in an OpenUtau voicebank by substring to locate pronunciation entries and target the right sample.

Instructions

Search oto.ini aliases of a voicebank (substring match). / 音源の oto.ini エイリアスを検索します（部分一致）。

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": {
      "voicebank": "<voicebank>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_oto"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
voicebankYes

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only substring matching and does not explain case sensitivity, pagination behavior, return format, permissions, or whether the search covers all aliases in the voicebank.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no filler. The bilingual repetition does not add ambiguity and the core meaning is immediately clear.

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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It identifies what is searched and the match type, but leaves out important context such as how results are returned and how the limit parameter affects the response.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for query as a substring match and indicates that voicebank refers to the voicebank whose oto.ini aliases are searched, but it does not explain the limit parameter or the expected voicebank identifier format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: search oto.ini aliases of a voicebank, with substring matching. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_voicebanks or get_voicebank, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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?

The description implies that the tool is used for finding aliases by substring, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions such as whether the voicebank must be loaded first. An agent must infer the appropriate context entirely.

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