Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_create_hemiola

Create a hemiola polyrhythm by overlaying 3:2 or 2:3 note groupings with distinct pitches and velocities on a single track, producing a cross-rhythm effect.

Instructions

Create a hemiola — 3:2 rhythmic displacement creating cross-rhythm illusion.

A hemiola superimposes a 3-note grouping over a 2-note grouping (or vice versa) within the same time span, creating the illusion of a different meter. The classic 3-against-2 pattern is fundamental to West African, Afro-Cuban, jazz, and minimalist music. Brahms, Bernstein, and Glass used it extensively.

The pattern string defines which beats get primary vs secondary emphasis: "3:2" — 3 primary notes in the time of 2 secondary (classic hemiola) "2:3" — 2 primary notes in the time of 3 secondary (inverse hemiola)

Creates notes on a single track: primary group uses primary_pitch, secondary group uses secondary_pitch. Both span the same total duration.

pattern: "3:2" (3 against 2) or "2:3" (2 against 3). bars: Total length in bars (1-4). Each bar = 4 beats. unit_index: AU index. track_index: Note track index. start_beat: Starting beat position. primary_pitch: MIDI pitch for primary group (default 60 = C4). secondary_pitch: MIDI pitch for secondary group (default 64 = E4). primary_velocity: Velocity for primary notes 0-1. secondary_velocity: Velocity for secondary notes 0-1. duration: Note duration in beats.

Returns total notes created and hemiola ratio.

Example: create_hemiola(pattern="3:2", bars=2, primary_pitch=60, secondary_pitch=67)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barsNo
patternYes
durationNo
start_beatNo
unit_indexNo
track_indexNo
primary_pitchNo
secondary_pitchNo
primary_velocityNo
secondary_velocityNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that notes are created on a single track, primary and secondary groups use respective pitches, and both span the same total duration. It also mentions return values. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing notes or error behavior for invalid parameters.

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: definition, pattern explanation, behavior, parameter list, return value, and example. It is longer than necessary due to cultural/historical references (Brahms, Bernstein, Glass), but these do add musical context. Overall, the structure is logical and the important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the musical concept, pattern semantics, all parameters with defaults, return value, and gives an example. Minor gaps remain around exact note placement details and distinguishing from similar polyrhythm/cross-rhythm tools, but it is generally sufficient.

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 by explaining every parameter with context: pattern values, bars range (1-4), beat units, pitch defaults (60=C4, 64=E4), velocity ranges (0-1), and duration meaning. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a hemiola with a specific 3:2 rhythmic displacement, using specific verbs and the resource type. It explains the concept and pattern variants, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_polyrhythm or create_cross_rhythm.

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 provides musical context and pattern options (3:2 vs 2:3), implying when a hemiola might be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of similar rhythm tools, and no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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