Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aviutl2-mcp

aviutl2-mcp

by sima05020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

起動中プロジェクトの状態取得

live_get_state

Fetch the current scene settings and all objects (alias format) in real-time from the running AviUtl2 to monitor the editing state.

Instructions

起動中のAviUtl2から現在編集中シーンの設定と全オブジェクト(エイリアス形式)をリアルタイムに取得する。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "live_get_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns scene settings and all objects in alias format in real time, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling, side effects (though a getter is likely safe), or the exact response format, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, source, and scope. Every phrase carries meaning—'起動中のAviUtl2', '現在編集中シーン', '全オブジェクト(エイリアス形式)', 'リアルタイム'—with no redundancy.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the primary guide for what is returned. It mentions scene settings and all objects in alias format, but lacks detail on the exact structure of the response or potential error conditions. This is adequate for a low-complexity tool, but leaves some ambiguity about the return shape.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details (there are none), but this is acceptable given the tool takes no inputs.

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 uses a specific verb '取得する' (retrieve) and clearly identifies the resource: from the running AviUtl2, it retrieves current scene settings and all objects in alias format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like live_add_object or live_delete_object, which are mutation operations.

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 usage when AviUtl2 is running and real-time state is needed ('起動中のAviUtl2から', 'リアルタイムに'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives such as live_status. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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