Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenUtau MCP

OpenUtau MCP

by Tehcnological
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ustx_list_notes

Extract all notes from a chosen voice part in a .ustx project to review pitch, timing, and lyrics before editing or playback.

Instructions

List the notes of a voice part in a .ustx file. / .ustx ファイルのボイスパートの音符一覧。

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_list_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partYes
pathYes

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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not state whether it fails on invalid paths, how 'part' is indexed or identified, whether output is ordered, or what happens with empty parts.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with no wasted preamble. The bilingual duplication adds some length without additional meaning, but the English sentence is efficient and 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 required-two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition is too thin. It does not describe the returned note list shape, error behavior, or part indexing, leaving important invocation details unspecified.

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 should compensate for both parameters. It loosely maps 'path' to a .ustx file and 'part' to a voice part, but gives no format or indexing details for the required integer part parameter. This is below the minimum-viable baseline for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the notes of a voice part in a .ustx file.' It scopes the operation to USTX voice parts, which helps distinguish it from generic note-listing tools. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer a sibling such as list_notes.

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, no prerequisite notes, and no exclusions. The implied use case is clear from the resource name, but nothing helps an agent choose between this and generic list_notes or other USTX tools.

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