Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aviutl2-mcp

aviutl2-mcp

by sima05020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

プロジェクトの読み取り

read_project

Parse .aup2 project files to extract scene settings, object layers, frame ranges, effects, and parameters as JSON. Learn parameter formats from existing AviUtl projects.

Instructions

.aup2 を解析して JSON で返す (シーン設定・全オブジェクトのレイヤー/フレーム範囲/エフェクトとパラメータ)。GUI で作った既存プロジェクトからパラメータの書式を学ぶのにも使える。

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": "read_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes.aup2 の絶対パス

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format and contents, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no side effects) or how it handles invalid files or paths. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity, though the name and 'parse' suggest safety.

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 two sentences: the first gives the core function and output contents, the second adds a practical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and suggests a usage scenario. It omits error handling or edge-case behavior, but for a simple read tool this is adequate and nearly 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 for the single parameter 'path' is 100%, including a clear description in the schema itself. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage or format, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 parses .aup2 files and returns JSON with specific contents (scene settings, object layers, frame ranges, effects, parameters). It also mentions a useful secondary purpose (learning parameter format), and the verb 'read' distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, or delete projects.

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 provides a specific use case: learning parameter formats from GUI-created projects, which implies when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the read-only nature is evident from context and sibling tool naming.

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