Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

split_lyrics

Preview how input text is divided into one lyric per note before assigning it to a melody, with automatic, Japanese, or English language handling.

Instructions

Preview how text is split into one lyric per note (language auto / ja / en). / テキストが1音符ずつの歌詞にどう分割されるかを確認します（auto / ja / en）。

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "split_lyrics"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
languageNoauto

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 must carry the full behavioral burden. "Preview" hints that the tool is non-mutating, but it never confirms that nothing is written to the project or says whether the result is deterministic or what the result exposes. That is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Both language variants are short and front-loaded: the verb and the resource come first, then the language caveat. The bilingual duplication adds length, but that is justified for a Japanese-facing tool, and every sentence still earns its place.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description conveys what it does at a high level. It omits the required text parameter and does not describe what a preview returns, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 does clarify the language option by naming auto, ja and en, which the schema does not enumerate, but it says nothing about the required text parameter or its expected format.

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: it previews how text is split into one lyric per note, which signals a non-mutating inspection rather than an assignment. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like set_lyrics or assign_lyrics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The word "Preview" implies the when-to-use context: checking the split before committing it. However, the description never says when not to use it, nor does it name the mutation siblings it complements.

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