Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ustx_fit_part

Resizes a specified part in a .ustx project so its boundaries fit its notes, keeping project timing aligned after edits.

Instructions

fit_part for a .ustx file. / .ustx ファイル版の fit_part。

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>",
      "part": "<part>"
    },
    "name": "ustx_fit_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partYes
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing. It does not say whether the operation mutates the file, whether it writes to disk, whether it requires the project to be open, or what happens if the part index is invalid.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is very short, but shortness here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The bilingual restatement duplicates the same vacuous sentence without adding information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutating tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides none of the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly — it should explain the fitting semantics, the path/part format, and the side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the parameters are bare titles ('path', 'part') with no types beyond string/integer. The description adds no meaning: no path format, no indication whether 'part' is an index or a name, no constraints.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"fit_part for a .ustx file" essentially restates the tool name and adds only a file-format qualifier, which does distinguish it from the sibling fit_part. However, the core operation (what 'fit' means for a part) is never defined, so an agent cannot tell what the tool actually does to the project.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The '.ustx file' phrasing weakly implies this is the USTX-specific counterpart to fit_part, but there is no explicit condition, prerequisite, or exclusion telling an agent which of the two to pick.

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