Skip to main content
Glama

Create cue sequencer

create_cue_sequencer

Build a beat-synced cue timeline: on each bar/beat, advance through an ordered cue list, snapping or morphing to each on a target COMP. Deterministic alternative to autopilot using manage_cue cues.

Instructions

Build a bar-quantized cue timeline: a Beat CHOP (on the global tempo) + a CHOP Execute DAT that, on each bar (or beat) boundary, advances through an ordered list of steps and recalls — or morphs over morph_seconds — that step's cue on a target COMP. The deterministic, musically-timed counterpart to create_autopilot (which is random/cyclic). Reuses manage_cue's stored cues and the same cue_morph engine, so store the target's cues with manage_cue first. Live Active / Step / BarsPerStep controls let you pause, jump, or retune on stage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loopNoWhen the last step finishes, wrap back to the first (true) or stop (false).
nameNoName of the engine container built inside target.cue_seq
stepsYesThe ordered timeline: each step names a cue and how many bars/beats it holds before the next.
targetNoCOMP whose stored cues (tdmcp_cues, from manage_cue) the sequencer recalls/morphs. Store the cues first./project1
quantizeNoUnit each step's count is measured in: 'bar' (× the project's beats-per-bar) or raw 'beat'.bar
parent_pathNoWhere to create the sequencer engine COMP./project1
morph_secondsNo0 = snap to each cue instantly on its boundary; >0 = crossfade to it over this many seconds (via the same cue_morph engine manage_cue uses).
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the internal architecture (Beat CHOP, CHOP Execute DAT), the timing behavior (advances on bar/beat boundaries), the morphing behavior (morph_seconds), and the runtime controls (Live Active / Step / BarsPerStep). It adds significant context about side effects and dependencies without contradicting annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause adds value: architecture, timing, morphing, comparison to autopilot, prerequisite, and live controls. It is dense but not verbose, and no fluff is present.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what is built, how it behaves, what dependencies exist, and how it is operated. However, it does not explicitly state return values or error conditions, though these are minor for a creation tool. The prerequisite and behavioral details make it sufficient for most use cases.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description enhances understanding by explaining the semantic model: 'ordered list of steps' clarifies the steps array, and 'bar-quantized cue timeline' gives context to quantize and bars. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a bar-quantized cue timeline,' and then details the concrete implementation (Beat CHOP + CHOP Execute DAT). It explicitly differentiates itself from create_autopilot as the 'deterministic, musically-timed counterpart,' making its purpose clear and distinguishing it from a key sibling.

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?

The description states a clear usage contrast: 'The deterministic, musically-timed counterpart to create_autopilot (which is random/cyclic).' It also gives a prerequisite: 'store the target's cues with manage_cue first,' which tells the user when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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