Skip to main content
Glama

Create band router

create_band_router

Split an audio signal into EQ bands and route each band's smoothed level to target parameters, enabling frequency-based control of effects.

Instructions

Split an audio signal into EQ bands and route each band to its own target parameter(s) — the musician-friendly 'bass -> this, highs -> that' patch. Builds a container with: a Select CHOP isolating the source audio by absolute path (no cross-container wire), N audiofilterCHOP band-pass slices tiling the spectrum in log-frequency space (the same audioFilter idiom extract_audio_features uses), an Analyze CHOP per band measuring its level via rmspower, a Merge + Lag smoothing the per-band envelope (release in seconds), and a Null 'bands_out' carrying one channel per band named band0..bandN-1 (band0 = lowest). Each target route binds a band's smoothed level to a parameter by expression (op('')['band'] * scale + offset). The bands_out Null is also directly bind_to_channel-able for routes you add later. EXTENSION sibling of extract_audio_features (that one extracts named features; this one is the band-split + multi-target router). NOTE: the analyze 'rmspower' function value and the channel-rename pars are UNVERIFIED across TD builds — they are set in guarded tries with fallbacks (abs envelope / upstream channel names), and a single audiospectrumCHOP is the fallback if audiofilterCHOP is unavailable; per-item failures surface as warnings rather than failing the build.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoBase name for the container COMP that holds the EQ split + router.band_router
bandsNoNumber of EQ bands to split the signal into (e.g. 4 = sub / low / mid / high). The output Null carries one channel per band, named band0..bandN-1 (band0 = lowest).
smoothNoRelease/lag time in seconds applied to every band level — smooths the per-band envelope so reactivity follows a clean curve instead of flickering on raw audio (e.g. 0.05 punchy, 0.2 smooth).
targetsNoOptional band->parameter routes. Each binds one band's smoothed level to a parameter by expression (op('<bands_out>')['band<i>'] * scale + offset). Omit to just build the split (bind later with bind_to_channel against the bands_out Null).
parent_pathNoWhere to build the band-router container (a COMP path, e.g. '/project1')./project1
source_chopYesPath of the raw audio CHOP to split (e.g. an Audio Device In or Audio File In, '/project1/audiodevin1'). REQUIRED.
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses internal composition (Select CHOP, audiofilterCHOP, Analyze CHOP, Merge, Lag, Null) and explicitly flags unverified details across TD builds with fallbacks and warning behavior ('UNVERIFIED across TD builds — they are set in guarded tries...'). This goes well beyond the annotations' limited hints.

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 substantial but well-organized, front-loaded with the core purpose and using a list format for internals. It repeats some schema content (e.g., the expression format) but each section earns its place; a minor trim of redundancy would be possible.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a build tool with no output schema, it thoroughly explains what is built, the naming conventions, the routing expression, and fallback behavior, plus how to use the result via bind_to_channel. It even notes failure modes.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters and already explain bands, smooth, targets, etc. The description adds little new parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the expression format and band naming already present in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Split an audio signal into EQ bands and route each band to its own target parameter(s)'. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling extract_audio_features, naming the alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names extract_audio_features as an EXTENSION sibling and contrasts their purposes ('that one extracts named features; this one is the band-split + multi-target router'). Also states the option to omit targets for later binding via bind_to_channel.

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/lucasmaher-hash/touch-designer-mcp'

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