Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_explode_chords

Split chord tracks into separate voice tracks for orchestration. Distribute notes to individual instruments like bass, cello, viola, violin with configurable voice assignment and velocity balance.

Instructions

Explode chords into separate voice tracks.

Takes a chord track and splits each chord into individual voices, distributing them to separate tracks. The lowest note of each chord goes to voice 1 (bass), the next to voice 2, etc. This is the fundamental orchestration technique — converting a chord progression into individual instrumental parts.

Typical use: piano chord track → bass + cello + viola + violin. Or: synth chords → sub bass + pad + lead + pluck.

Args: unit_index: Source AU index with chord track track_index: Source note track index with chords region_index: Source region index (-1 = first region) num_voices: Number of voices to split into (2-8, default 4). Chords with fewer notes than num_voices get rests in higher voices. Chords with more notes than num_voices get extra notes merged into the highest voice. direction: Voice assignment order — "down": lowest note → voice 1 (bass), ascending voices "up": highest note → voice 1 (top), descending voices "outward": middle notes → outer voices, edge notes → inner target_units: Comma-separated AU indices for destination tracks. If empty, creates new AUs automatically. If provided, must have at least num_voices entries (e.g. "0,1,2,3"). velocity_balance: How to distribute velocity across voices — "natural": lower voices slightly louder (bass prominence) "equal": all voices same velocity "top_heavy": upper voices louder (melody prominence) "fade": velocity decreases from voice 1 to voice N

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directionNodown
num_voicesNo
unit_indexYes
track_indexYes
region_indexNo
target_unitsNo
velocity_balanceNonatural

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the behavior: lowest note to voice 1, handling of fewer/more notes, direction options, velocity balance options, and target unit behavior. This level of detail exceeds expectations for behavioral 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 well-structured: a concise one-liner, followed by a process explanation, a typical use example, and then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's functionality, parameter details, and use cases. With an output schema available (though not provided), the description does not need to explain return values. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's 'Args' section provides comprehensive meaning for each parameter: defaults, valid ranges (2-8 for num_voices), behaviors (e.g., 'Chords with fewer notes... get rests'), and options (direction and velocity_balance with enumerated values). This fully compensates for the schema lack.

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 'Explodes chords into separate voice tracks' and explains the orchestration process. The verb 'explode' is specific, and the resource ('chords' into 'voice tracks') is well-defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'invert_chord_notes' or 'spread_voicing' by focusing on splitting chords into separate tracks.

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 typical use cases ('piano chord track → bass + cello + viola + violin') and explains the orchestration technique. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear. The presence of many sibling tools makes this a solid 4, as it offers enough guidance for selecting the tool.

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