Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_create_binary_form

Compose a binary form musical structure with A/B sections, optional repeats, and modulation choices, writing melody and bass to adjacent tracks.

Instructions

Create binary form — two contrasting sections (A|B) with optional repeats.

Binary form is the simplest structural form in Western music: two self-contained sections, each typically repeated. The A section establishes the tonic, the B section departs and returns. Found in Baroque dance suites (Bach, Handel), folk tunes, early jazz, and many pop structures.

Modulation types (how B section relates to A):

  • dominant: B section in the dominant key (V). Classical approach — Bach two-part inventions, Baroque dance movements.

  • relative: B section in the relative minor/major. Romantic and folk approach — gentler contrast.

  • subdominant: B section in the subdominant (IV). Church hymns, modal folk tunes.

  • parallel: B section stays in same key but uses contrasting melodic material. Minimalist/folk approach.

  • no_modulation: B section identical key, same harmonic center.

With repeat=True, each section is played twice (AABB structure), matching the traditional binary form with repeat marks.

A section: stepwise melody around tonic, I-V-I harmony. B section: contrasting melody in modulated key, wider intervals, returns to tonic at end.

Creates melody on track_index, bass on track_index+1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repeatNo
key_rootNoG
velocityNo
modulationNodominant
scale_nameNomajor
start_beatNo
unit_indexNo
track_indexNo
bars_per_sectionNo

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 the full burden. It transparently discloses the generated output structure (A/B sections, repeat behavior), the side effect of creating melody on track_index and bass on track_index+1, and musical behavior details like modulation types. It does not address operational consequences such as overwriting existing notes or error conditions, but the disclosed behavioral traits go well beyond a minimal description.

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 long but well-structured, with a clear front-loaded purpose, a section on modulation types, and a line about repeat behavior. The music theory background is useful but somewhat verbose; each sentence earns its place for a creative tool, though it could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the musical concept, modulation options, and track targeting adequately. With an output schema present, return values need not be described. However, operational details such as how bars_per_section, start_beat, and unit_index affect the generation, and what happens to existing notes, are missing. This leaves the description sufficient for basic invocation but incomplete for nuanced use.

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 must compensate. It explains three parameters indirectly: modulation (via the modulation types list), repeat (via 'With repeat=True'), and track_index (via the track assignment note). However, it leaves key_root, scale_name, start_beat, unit_index, bars_per_section, and velocity unexplained, which is a significant gap for an agent choosing parameter values.

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 first sentence — 'Create binary form — two contrasting sections (A|B) with optional repeats' — uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like create_ternary_form or create_sonata_form. The rest of the description reinforces the formal structure with musical context.

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 clear usage context by situating binary form in specific musical genres (Baroque dance suites, folk, early jazz, pop), which implies when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity against sibling form-creation tools.

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-ai/opendaw-mcp'

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