Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_create_konokol

Create Indian Carnatic konokol vocal percussion as MIDI on a track. Maps syllables like ta, ka, dhi, mi to drum sounds across tala cycles.

Instructions

Create Indian Carnatic konokol (solkattu) — vocal percussion as MIDI.

Konokol (also spelled konnakkol) is the South Indian art of vocal percussion. Syllables represent rhythmic patterns: ta, ka, di, mi, thom, nam, ghu, dhi, khatam. Each syllable maps to a specific drum sound. This is the rhythmic foundation of all Carnatic music.

Styles (tala structures):

  • adi_tala: 8-beat cycle (most common). Structure: 4+2+2. Syllables: ta-ka-dhi-mi ta-ka-dhi-mi ta-ka-ta-ka. The foundational tala of Carnatic music.

  • roopaka_tala: 6-beat cycle (3/4). Structure: 3+3. Syllables: ta-ka-dhi ta-ka-dhi-mi. Used in lighter compositions, varnams.

  • khanda_chapu: 5-beat cycle. Structure: 2+3. Syllables: ta-ka ta-ka-ta. Asymmetric, flowing feel. Common in kritis.

  • mishra_chapu: 7-beat cycle. Structure: 3+2+2. Syllables: ta-ki-ta ta-ka ta-ka. Lyrical, song-like rhythm. Used in padams.

  • triputa_tala: 7-beat cycle (3+2+2 variant). Syllables: ta-ka-dhi-mi ta-ka ta. Alternative 7-beat structure.

  • jhampa_tala: 10-beat cycle. Structure: 4+2+4. Syllables: ta-ka-dhi-mi ta-ka ta-ka-dhi-mi. Used in javalis and tillanas.

GM percussion mapping (Indian fusion approach): 36 (kick) → thom, ghu (bass drum — low/open tones) 38 (snare) → nam, dhi (sharp, crisp) 42 (closed hat) → ta, ka (high, crisp) 43 (high floor tom) → mi (mid) 45 (low tom) → khatam (rolled)

Creates konokol notes on track_index. Includes syllable text in the result for reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleNoadi_tala
cyclesNo
velocityNo
tempo_bpmNo
start_beatNo
unit_indexNo
track_indexNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It discloses the GM note mapping (36, 38, 42, 43, 45), the fact that notes are placed on track_index, and that syllable text is included in the result. It does not reveal whether notes are appended or overwritten, or how start_beat/unit_index behave, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 uses a clear header plus bulleted sections for styles and mapping. While relatively long, the material is relevant and organized, and the opening line front-loads the purpose. No repetition of schema field titles or redundant filler.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but output schema exists), the description covers the domain thoroughly but leaves operational questions open: the meaning of unit_index, how start_beat is interpreted, whether cycles is a repeat count, and what the output schema contains beyond syllable text. It is valuable but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is responsible for parameter semantics. It thoroughly documents the 'style' parameter by listing all valid values and their structures, and it mentions 'track_index' as the target track. However, 'cycles', 'velocity', 'tempo_bpm', 'start_beat', and 'unit_index' are left undefined, leaving most parameters ambiguous for an agent.

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 opens with 'Create Indian Carnatic konokol (solkattu) — vocal percussion as MIDI' and later states 'Creates konokol notes on track_index', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like create_tala, but the highly specific musical terminology and style list make the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are stated; however, the detailed explanation of konokol, tala structures, and the phrase 'This is the rhythmic foundation of all Carnatic music' imply the intended context. It lacks an explicit 'use when...' and does not distinguish from the many sibling creation tools like create_tala or create_drum_pattern.

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