Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Otohiroi MCP

Otohiroi MCP

by koyomivanp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

add_pack

Register a downloaded folder, .zip, or audio file so its contents can be searched and fetched, while capturing license and commercial-use details.

Instructions

Register a folder, .zip or audio file the user already downloaded so it can be searched and fetched.

A CC0 license file is detected. Otherwise pass license (cc0, by, by-sa, or a label such as niconi-commons) and, for labels, commercial_use as stated by the source. Pass region='JP' for licenses limited to Japan.

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": "add_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
noteNo
pathYes
authorNo
regionNo
licenseNo
source_urlNo
commercial_useNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: CC0 detection happens automatically, and license/commercial_use/region only need passing otherwise. However, it says nothing about mutation semantics, duplicate handling, indexing side effects, or what happens if the path is invalid — important gaps for a write-style registration 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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the licensing rules follow in a logical order with no filler. Information density is high, though the second and third sentences are somewhat compressed and could be split for readability.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the hardest part (license and region rules) but leaves gaps: no return-value expectations, no duplicate/overwrite behavior, and no meaning for the metadata parameters. It is adequate to call the tool correctly in the common case but not 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it enumerates license values (cc0, by, by-sa, label form like niconi-commons), explains that commercial_use applies only to labels, and clarifies region='JP'. Four of eight parameters (name, note, author, source_url) receive no explanation anywhere, and the 'path' parameter is only implied by the file-type list rather than named.

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 ('Register') plus a precise resource set ('a folder, .zip or audio file') and states the outcome ('so it can be searched and fetched'). It implicitly separates itself from download-style siblings by emphasizing 'the user already downloaded', but never names an alternative, so it falls 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?

Usage context is implied through 'the user already downloaded', which tells the agent this is for local content rather than remote lookup. Beyond that, guidance is limited to license/region parameter branches; there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for discovery-style tasks.

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