Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_create_future_bass_arrangement

Generate a future bass arrangement with 4 tracks: drums, sub-bass, supersaw chords, and vocal-chop lead. Uses a I-V-vi-IV progression and pitching snare rolls.

Instructions

Create a full future bass arrangement — 4 tracks: drums + bass + chords + lead.

Future bass (Flume, San Holo, Illenium, ODESZA) blends electronic production with melodic/emotional sensibility. Key characteristics:

  • 130-160 BPM, often major key (uplifting feel)

  • Pitching snare rolls before drops (rising pitch + velocity crescendo)

  • Big supersaw chords — wide, detuned, layered

  • Sub-bass under chords, syncopated with kicks

  • Vocal chop aesthetic — short rhythmic melodic fragments

  • Sidechain pumping feel

  • Bright, shimmering, nostalgic

Creates 4 tracks:

  1. Drums (drum_track): Punchy kick on 1 and 3, snare on 2 and 4, 16th hats with rolls, and pitching snare roll at end of phrase (8 bars) — simulated by ascending pitch notes.

  2. Bass (bass_track): Sub-bass following chord roots, syncopated gaps, octave drops. Sustained under chords.

  3. Chords (chord_track): Big supersaw-style chords — major 7th / add9 voicings, wide voicings (root/third/seventh/ninth/octave), 2 bars per chord. I-V-vi-IV progression.

  4. Lead (lead_track): Vocal-chop style melodic fragments — short rhythmic notes in major scale, catchy phrases, starts after 4 bars.

bpm: Tempo (120-170, default 150). bars: Arrangement length (4-32, default 8). root: Root note (default C = common future bass key). octave: MIDI octave for chords (3 = C3=48).

Example: create_future_bass_arrangement(bpm=150, root="C", bars=8) create_future_bass_arrangement(bpm=140, root="G", bars=16)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bpmNo
barsNo
rootNoC
octaveNo
velocityNo
bass_trackNo
drum_trackNo
lead_trackNo
start_beatNo
unit_indexNo
chord_trackNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It details the creation of 4 tracks with specific musical patterns and parameter defaults. However, it fails to mention that the tool likely modifies existing tracks (via track index parameters) and may overwrite existing content. The description implies generative behavior but lacks explicit warnings about destructive actions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with a summary sentence but contains a lengthy paragraph on future bass characteristics that is interesting but not essential for tool usage. Track descriptions are detailed but could be more compact. Examples are useful. Slightly verbose overall.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, genre-specific), the description covers the main aspects: genre characteristics, track roles, musical patterns, defaults, and examples. It does not describe the output schema or side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior), but for a creative arrangement tool it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates partially. It explains bpm, bars, root, and octave with ranges and defaults, and implicitly connects track parameters to the 4 tracks. However, parameters like velocity, start_beat, and unit_index are not explained. Examples help but coverage is ~45%.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a full future bass arrangement — 4 tracks' with specific genre characteristics and track roles. The verb 'create' and resource 'future bass arrangement' are precise, and the description distinguishes this tool from the many other genre-specific arrangement tools in the sibling list.

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 for future bass arrangements but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other create_*_arrangement tools). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, though the genre context is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AMEOBIUS-team/opendaw-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server