Skip to main content
Glama
ismail: agent DAW (MCP server)

ismail: agent DAW (MCP server)

Live Load

live_load

Loads an ismail song project onto a deck, cued off air by default, with optional bar section, looping, and start position for transition-ready playback.

Instructions

Load an ismail song (its project folder: tracks, instruments, effects, buses, notes) onto a deck; every track starts on the same bar. bars=[a, b] takes a section. It plays at the house tempo (re-rendered, not time-stretched) and loops unless loop=False. Cued (off air) by default while another deck is on air: listen with live_listen(deck=...), then bring it in with live_transition. The song's mix comes over as rendered: its automation (effect params and volume as ramps, instrument params rendered with the notes, the master fade; repeated every pass on a looping deck) and its group buses (a reverb on a drum bus keeps the dry drums). Audio tracks (placed clips, track_freeze) play from the song's files bar by bar at the song's own speed; audio placed on a track that also has notes does not (the reply lists what was left out). The song's master chain (its limiter) runs on the deck. Loading replaces what a cued deck held. A cued deck plays from at (off air), so a song loaded early with at='next_bar' is already bars into itself when the transition brings it in: load it with at='bar:<the transition's bar>' to start it from its top on air. deck_cost(song) says beforehand how long its first bar takes to render here, and which track makes the wait.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atNonext_bar
cueNo
barsNo
deckYes
loopNo
songYes
projectYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so extensively: it discloses re-rendering at house tempo, looping defaults, cueing state, replacement of cued deck contents, automation and bus behavior, audio-track handling, omission reporting, and master-chain application.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and keeps most sentences informative, but the description is very dense and long with nested parentheticals. For a complex live-loading operation this length is mostly earned, though some clauses could be tightened.

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?

Given the complexity, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers timing, cueing, replacement effects, playback behavior, and preprocessing checks via deck_cost.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains bars, loop, at, and cue behavior in useful detail. However, it does not fully define the distinct roles of project, deck, and song parameters, leaving some ambiguity despite strong coverage of the timing and playback parameters.

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?

States a specific verb, resource, and destination: loading an ismail song onto a deck, with scope details including tracks, instruments, effects, buses, and notes. It clearly distinguishes live deck loading from other live operations by naming live_listen and live_transition.

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?

Explains the default cued/off-air behavior, how to listen via live_listen, and how to bring the song in with live_transition. It also gives explicit guidance on using at='next_bar' versus at='bar:<transition's bar>' when loading ahead of a transition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools