Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_shuffle_notes

Randomly shuffle note pitches, rhythm, or both in a region to generate musical variations. Control shuffle amount, preserve first/last notes, and use seeded reproducibility.

Instructions

Shuffle note data randomly within a region.

Random permutation of notes — unlike rotate_notes (deterministic cyclic shift), this creates non-repeating orderings. Seeded for reproducibility: same seed = same shuffle.

Modes:

  • "pitches": shuffle which pitch goes to which position (keeps rhythm, changes melody). Most musical — generates melodic variations from existing note set.

  • "rhythm": shuffle which position+duration goes to which pitch (keeps pitches, changes rhythm). Reassigns onset times among existing pitch values.

  • "full": shuffle pitch + position + duration + velocity together (complete randomization of all note attributes).

  • "within_groups": shuffle pitches within groups of group_beats beats. Notes stay in their time window but pitches get randomized within each group. Creates localized variation.

Args: unit_index: Audio unit index track_index: Note track index region_index: Region index (-1 = first region) mode: Shuffle mode — "pitches", "rhythm", "full", "within_groups" seed: PRNG seed (0 = random each call, >0 = reproducible) shuffle_amount: 0.0-1.0, fraction of notes to shuffle (0=no change, 1=full shuffle, 0.5=shuffle half) preserve_first: Keep first note unchanged (anchor point) preserve_last: Keep last note unchanged (resolution point) group_beats: Group size in beats for within_groups mode (e.g. 4 = shuffle within each bar, 2 = within half bars)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNopitches
seedNo
unit_indexYes
group_beatsNo
track_indexYes
region_indexNo
preserve_lastNo
preserve_firstNo
shuffle_amountNo

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 carries full burden. It explains shuffle behavior and parameter effects but does not disclose that it modifies the region in place, whether it's undoable, or other side effects. The description adds value but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose statement, mode explanations, and an Args list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of defaults. Overall clear and not overly verbose.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations), the description covers all relevant aspects. It mentions reproducibility and differentiates from a key sibling. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. Could be slightly more complete by noting that the shuffle modifies the region directly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining all 9 parameters, including mode options and their musical implications, seed reproducibility, and the meaning of shuffle_amount and preserve flags. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for no schema coverage.

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 'Shuffle note data randomly within a region' and contrasts with rotate_notes, making the purpose and differentiation explicit. It uses a specific verb (shuffle) and resource (note data in a region), and distinguishes from a sibling tool.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use different modes (e.g., 'Most musical — generates melodic variations' for pitches) and mentions reproducibility with seeds. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with other randomization siblings like humanize_notes or randomize_note_chance.

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