Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_merge_note_tracks

Merge notes from a source track into a destination track, resolving overlaps by velocity or priority rules. Optionally delete the source track after merging.

Instructions

Merge notes from a source track into a destination track.

Combines notes from two tracks into one, optionally deleting the source. Overlapping notes are resolved by the chosen strategy. Unlike copy_notes_to_track (which just copies), merge consolidates two note streams into a single coherent track — the source notes are integrated into the destination region and optionally removed from origin.

Typical use cases:

  • Merge a doubled melody into the main melody track

  • Consolidate counterpoint into the harmony track

  • Combine left-hand and right-hand piano into one track

  • Flatten multi-track MIDI into a single instrument

Args: source_unit: AU index of source track source_track: Note track index within source AU dest_unit: AU index of destination track dest_track: Note track index within destination AU source_region: Source region index (-1 = first region) dest_region: Destination region index (-1 = first region, or auto-create if none exists) delete_source: If True, delete source notes after merge. If False, notes remain in both tracks (copy mode). resolve_overlaps: Strategy for overlapping notes — "keep_higher_velocity" = keep louder note at conflict point, "keep_lower_velocity" = keep quieter note, "keep_source" = prefer source notes, "keep_dest" = prefer destination notes, "keep_both" = keep all overlapping notes (no resolution), "shorten_earlier" = truncate the earlier-starting note to end where the later one begins. transpose: Semitones to transpose source notes (-24 to 24).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dest_unitYes
transposeNo
dest_trackYes
dest_regionNo
source_unitYes
source_trackYes
delete_sourceNo
source_regionNo
resolve_overlapsNokeep_higher_velocity

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details merging behavior, delete_source option, overlap resolution strategies, transpose, and region handling. It does not mention side effects like permanent changes or performance, but the key behaviors are well covered.

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 with a summary, comparison, use cases, and parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. While slightly lengthy, every section contributes useful information, making it appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return values. However, for a complex tool with 9 parameters and overlap strategies, the parameter semantics are thorough. Minor gap in return value documentation prevents a perfect score.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter in detail, including defaults, meaning, and allowed values (e.g., resolve_overlaps strategies). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Merge notes from a source track into a destination track' and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool copy_notes_to_track, saying it consolidates two note streams rather than just copying. This provides a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 (e.g., merge a doubled melody, consolidate counterpoint) and contrasts with copy_notes_to_track. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the contrast implies the exclusive scenario. Slightly lacking in exclusion guidance.

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