Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ustx_create

Create a new .ustx project file with one empty track and no parts, setting path, tempo, singer, and phonemizer options for OpenUtau editing.

Instructions

Create a new .ustx file (one track, no parts). singer = voicebank id or name. / 新しい .ustx ファイルを作成します（1トラック、パートなし）。singer は音源 ID か名前。

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ustx_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bpmNo
nameNo
pathYes
singerNo
overwriteNo
phonemizerNo

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. It usefully discloses the initial project shape (one track, no parts), but says nothing about what overwrite=true does to an existing file, whether missing parent directories are created, or what errors occur — a significant gap for a file-creating tool.

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 sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded, and the parameter hint at the end. The English/Japanese duplication is reasonable for a bilingual audience and adds no filler.

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 six-parameter file-creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only the initial project shape and one parameter. The destructive overwrite flag and the remaining parameters are undocumented anywhere.

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% across six parameters, and only one of them is clarified: singer being a voicebank id or name. The meaning of path, overwrite, bpm, name, and phonemizer is left entirely to a bare schema with no descriptions.

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 ("Create a new .ustx file") and adds real scope detail: one track, no parts. It does not name or contrast with siblings like ustx_add_track, but the creation intent is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of what to do when a file already exists at the path, and no routing to alternative tools for adding tracks or parts. The agent must infer that this is the project-initialization entry point.

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