Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_humanize_notes

Apply human-like variations to velocity, timing, duration, and swing of MIDI notes to make programmed sequences sound more natural and less mechanical.

Instructions

Add human-like variation to existing notes — velocity, timing, duration, and swing.

Makes programmed MIDI feel less robotic by applying small random deviations. Works on all notes in the specified track(s)/unit(s), or globally with unit_index=-1.

unit_index: AU index (-1 = all AUs). track_index: Note track index (-1 = all note tracks on the AU). velocity_amount: Velocity deviation depth 0-1 (0.15 = ±15% of current velocity). Example: 0.05 = subtle, 0.15 = natural, 0.25 = loose. timing_amount: Timing offset depth in beats 0-1 (0.15 = up to ±15% of a 16th note = ±3.6 ticks). Example: 0.05 = tight, 0.15 = natural groove, 0.30 = sloppy. duration_amount: Duration deviation depth 0-1 (0.10 = ±10% of current duration). swing: Swing amount 0-1 (0 = straight, 0.5 = light swing, 1.0 = full triplet feel). Shifts every other 16th note later by swing * 1/3 of a 16th. seed: Random seed for reproducibility (same seed = same humanization).

Returns per-track note counts and total notes humanized.

Example: humanize_notes(unit_index=0, velocity_amount=0.15, timing_amount=0.12, swing=0.35)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNo
swingNo
unit_indexNo
track_indexNo
timing_amountNo
duration_amountNo
velocity_amountNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it modifies notes non-destructively (applies random deviations), and specifies the return value ('per-track note counts and total notes humanized'). It does not mention prerequisites or potential side effects, but the behavioral description is adequate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured: a one-line summary, then general behavior, then parameter details. It is front-loaded with purpose. While lengthy, the detail is necessary for parameter clarity; no superfluous sentences.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, behavior, and return value. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates with detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including value ranges, examples (e.g., '0.05 = subtle, 0.15 = natural'), and behavioral impact (e.g., 'Shifts every other 16th note later by swing * 1/3 of a 16th'). This exceeds the baseline.

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: 'Add human-like variation to existing notes — velocity, timing, duration, and swing.' It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('notes') and distinguishes from siblings like humanize_pitch by enumerating the dimensions of variation.

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 explains the scope ('all notes in specified track(s)/unit(s), or globally with unit_index=-1') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like apply_swing or humanize_pitch. It lacks when-not and alternative comparisons.

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