Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_opendaw_create_sonata_form

Creates a sonata form with three sections: exposition, development, and recapitulation. Uses contrasting themes, modulations, and sequence-based development to generate melody and bass tracks.

Instructions

Create sonata form — exposition, development, recapitulation.

Sonata form is the structural foundation of classical symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, and concertos from Haydn through Mahler. Three main sections:

  1. EXPOSITION (bars 1-N): Two contrasting themes.

    • Theme 1 in the home key (tonic): stepwise, lyrical, conjunct

    • Transition: modulates from tonic to dominant (or relative major if minor key)

    • Theme 2 in the new key: more rhythmic, wider intervals

    • Closing group: cadential figures in the new key

  2. DEVELOPMENT (bars N+1 to N+M): Fragmentation and modulations.

    • Takes fragments from Theme 1 and Theme 2

    • Sequences through related keys (iii, vi, ii, IV)

    • Builds tension through rising sequences

    • Retransition: dominant pedal leading back to tonic

  3. RECAPITULATION (bars N+M+1 to end): Both themes in the tonic.

    • Theme 1 returns in tonic (as in exposition)

    • NO modulation — Theme 2 now in tonic (not dominant)

    • Closing group in tonic

    • Optional coda (4 bars): final cadential reinforcement

Melody track: track_index. Bass track: track_index + 1. The development section uses sequence-based modulation, the hallmark of classical development technique.

Scale options: major, minor, dorian, phrygian, lydian, mixolydian, aeolian, locrian, harmonic_minor, melodic_minor, pentatonic_major, pentatonic_minor, blues, whole_tone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_rootNoC
velocityNo
recap_barsNo
scale_nameNomajor
start_beatNo
unit_indexNo
track_indexNo
exposition_barsNo
development_barsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details such as melody on track_index and bass on track_index+1, and that the development section uses sequence-based modulation. However, it does not state whether existing notes are cleared or replaced, what prerequisites exist, or what side effects occur on the target tracks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear numbered sections and front-loaded purpose. However, it is verbose: the music-theory tutorial details (e.g., 'stepwise, lyrical, conjunct', 'closing group: cadential figures') exceed what is operationally needed for tool invocation and could be condensed without losing essential guidance.

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?

For a 9-parameter compositional tool, the description richly covers the musical form, scale options, and track layout – strong contextual grounding. But it omits operational details for 3 parameters and does not describe whether the tool overwrites existing region content. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but these gaps prevent full completeness.

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 adds substantial meaning for scale_name (full list of valid values), track_index (melody/bass relationship), and the bar-count parameters (exposition/development/recap implied by the structural explanation). However, velocity, start_beat, and unit_index are never explained, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 sonata form — exposition, development, recapitulation' uses a specific verb + resource and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling form-creating tools like create_binary_form, create_ternary_form, and create_rondo. The detailed structural description reinforces exactly what is being generated.

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 context for when to use the tool ('structural foundation of classical symphonies, sonatas, string quartets, and concertos from Haydn through Mahler'), implicitly signaling classical-era composition. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus other form generators.

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