aviutl2-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

導入済みアセットの一覧

list_assets

List AviUtl2 extension assets from the data folder by category, including scripts, plugins, figures, transitions, fonts, and aliases.

Instructions

AviUtl2 のデータフォルダにある拡張要素を一覧する。kind: scripts(スクリプト) / plugins(プラグイン) / figures(図形SVG) / transitions(シーンチェンジPNG) / fonts / aliases(エイリアス)

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "list_assets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context about the data source (AviUtl2 data folder) and the categories (kinds), but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe return format. The verb 'list' implies non-mutating behavior, but more detail (e.g., output structure) would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and compresses the kind listing into a compact parenthetical. Every part is informative, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics well. The main gap is that it does not describe what the listing returns (e.g., names, paths, or objects), which would be useful for the agent to know before invoking the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description explains the single 'kind' parameter by mapping each enum value to a human-readable label (scripts, plugins, figures, transitions, fonts, aliases). The schema only provides enum strings, so this adds significant meaning beyond the structured definition.

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's function: listing extension elements in AviUtl2's data folder. It uses a specific verb (一覧する) and resource (拡張要素), and enumerates the kinds, distinguishing it from sibling tools like install_script or uninstall_script.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you need to see installed assets) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools like install_script and uninstall_script suggest related operations, but the description does not position this tool relative to them beyond stating its listing function.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.