Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aviutl2-mcp

aviutl2-mcp

by sima05020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

リアルタイム制御ブリッジの接続確認

live_status

Check if AviUtl2 is reachable via the bridge plugin before using live tools. Verifies the connection is active to ensure real-time commands work.

Instructions

起動中のAviUtl2にブリッジプラグイン経由で接続できるか確認する(ping)。live_*系ツールを使う前に呼ぶこと。

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that this is a connection check (ping) and a prerequisite for live_* tools, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, how failures are reported, or any potential side effects. For a simple ping tool, this is a minor but notable gap.

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 ('確認する') and includes the parenthetical 'ping' for immediate understanding. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple no-parameter status check tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool does and when to call it (before live_* tools). The absence of an output schema is acceptable since return values are not complex for a ping-like operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('確認する' - check/confirm) and resource (connection to running AviUtl2 via bridge plugin), using 'ping' to make it intuitive. It is easily distinguished from sibling live_* tools, which perform state changes or object manipulation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'call before using live_* tools'. This gives clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or any alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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