Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_part

Rename, reposition to another track or time, or resize a voice part in an OpenUtau project to correct arrangement and timing.

Instructions

Rename, move (position / track) or resize a voice part. / ボイスパートの名前変更・移動（位置・トラック）・長さ変更。

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": {
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "update_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
partYes
trackNo
durationNo
positionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 for a mutation tool. It does not state what happens when the part does not exist, whether the move overwrites or collides with parts already on the target track, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence lists the operations efficiently, with the bilingual Japanese mirror being a deliberate duplication rather than padding. It is tight and easy to scan, with no wasted clauses.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. Critical details such as the identity of the 'part' parameter, value units, and failure/conflict behavior are all absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names name, position, track, and duration, but omits any meaning for the required 'part' identifier and gives no units or formats for position/duration (ticks? milliseconds?), leaving the most important semantics undefined.

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?

The description gives specific verbs (rename, move, resize) and a specific resource (voice part), and maps them onto the fields name, position/track, and duration. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_track, fit_part, or ustx_add_voice_part.

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 tool versus alternatives like update_track (for track-level changes) or fit_part / ustx_fit_part (for resizing). Only the implied 'modify an existing part' usage is conveyed, with no prerequisites such as the part needing to exist.

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