Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_create_polyrhythm

Create polyrhythms by combining two rhythmic streams with different subdivision counts on a single track. Generate cross-rhythm patterns like 3:4 or 2:3 for jazz, electronic, and progressive music.

Instructions

Create a polyrhythm — two rhythmic streams with different subdivision counts playing simultaneously.

A polyrhythm divides the same time span into two different numbers of equal parts. The classic 3:4 means 3 notes in the time of 4 — creating cross-rhythms used in jazz, electronic, African, and progressive music.

Creates notes on a single track: primary stream uses primary_pitch, secondary uses secondary_pitch. Both streams span the same total duration (bars × 4 beats).

primary_count: Number of primary subdivisions (2-16). E.g., 3 in a 3:4 polyrhythm. secondary_count: Number of secondary subdivisions (2-16). E.g., 4 in a 3:4 polyrhythm. bars: Total length in bars (1-8). unit_index: AU index. track_index: Note track index. start_beat: Starting beat position. primary_pitch: MIDI pitch for primary stream (default 60 = C4). secondary_pitch: MIDI pitch for secondary stream (default 72 = C5, one octave up). 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 polyrhythm ratio.

Common polyrhythms: 3:4 — classic cross-rhythm (jazz, electronic) 2:3 — hemiola (African, Latin) 3:5 — complex polyrhythm (progressive) 4:5 — dense polyrhythm (modern jazz) 7:8 — extreme polyrhythm (math rock)

Example: create_polyrhythm(primary_count=3, secondary_count=4, bars=2, primary_pitch=60, secondary_pitch=67)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
barsNo
durationNo
start_beatNo
unit_indexNo
track_indexNo
primary_countYes
primary_pitchNo
secondary_countYes
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 discloses useful behavior: it creates notes on a single track, spans the same total duration, and returns note count and ratio. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing note track), whether notes are added or replace existing content, or error handling, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 lengthy but well-organized: definition, parameter details, return value, common ratios, and example. The parameter list and examples are useful, though the common polyrhythms section is somewhat optional. It is structured enough to navigate without being wasteful.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and a rich musical concept, the description covers the core functionality well: concept, parameter semantics, common uses, and an example. It lacks prerequisites and error conditions, but the provided information is sufficient for typical use. An output schema exists, so the 'Returns' line is a bonus, not a necessity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains every parameter, including ranges, defaults, and musical meaning (e.g., primary_count=3 in a 3:4 polyrhythm, pitch defaults with note names). This adds substantial 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 polyrhythm with two simultaneous rhythmic streams, which is specific and unambiguous. It explains the concept and key parameters, but does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like create_cross_rhythm or create_metric_modulation, so it falls short of a 5.

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 (jazz, electronic, African, progressive) and defines when a polyrhythm is appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly contrasted with sibling 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