Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aviutl2-mcp

aviutl2-mcp

by sima05020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

プロジェクト (.aup2) の新規作成

create_project

Create an empty AviUtl2 project (.aup2) at a chosen path, with options for resolution, frame rate, audio rate, and scene name. Enables starting a video project with custom settings.

Instructions

空の AviUtl2 プロジェクトファイルを作成する。パスは .aup2 で終わること。AviUtl2 本体・データフォルダ内には作成できない。

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": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes作成する .aup2 の絶対パス
widthNo
heightNo
overwriteNo
audio_rateNo
frame_rateNoフレームレート(fps)
scene_nameNoRoot

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file type and path constraints, but omits important behavioral details such as overwrite behavior, directory creation, permissions, error handling, or return values.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three short sentences, each contributing distinct information: the core action, a path suffix requirement, and a location prohibition. It is front-loaded and free of redundant wording.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: it doesn't cover overwrite semantics, default parameter interactions, or what the tool returns. The constraints provided are useful but insufficient for a complex creation tool.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 properties have descriptions). The description adds path-related constraints for the 'path' parameter, but does not explain the meaning or behavior of width, height, overwrite, audio_rate, frame_rate, or scene_name.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates an empty AviUtl2 project file with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_project or update_scene by specifying the action of creation and the .aup2 file type.

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?

The purpose implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. It does provide usage constraints (path must end .aup2, cannot be in AviUtl2 main/data folder), but no direct comparison with other 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