Skip to main content
Glama

arrange_chops_to_chord_tones

Retune each vocal chop to a chord tone from your progression, mapping chops to roots, thirds, or fifths for experimental glitch and granular effects.

Instructions

[NICHE] Retune each chop to a chord tone.

⚠️ WARNING: This is NOT how professional vocal chops are made. Per-slice chord-tone retuning smears vocal formants and sounds unnatural. chop_pipeline uses uniform transpose instead, which is the correct default for EDM vocal chops.

This tool is kept for stylized experimental use (e.g., glitch / granular / heavily-processed chop effects where the pitched-up- demon-voice sound is the desired character). DO NOT use it as your default chop workflow.

Walks the chops in playback order. For each chop, determines which chord it falls within (based on its time position) and picks a chord tone according to layout. Applies the pitch shift via take_set_pitch.

Args: item_indices: JSON array of chop item indices (in playback order). Typically the chops list returned by item_split_at_transients. chord_progression: Chord names separated by commas, pipes, or dashes-with-spaces. E.g., "Cm7, Fm7, Bb7, Eb" or "Am - F - C - G". beats_per_chord: How many beats each chord lasts. Default 4 (one bar per chord at 4/4). bpm: Project tempo. Pass 0 to fetch from REAPER (extra round-trip). layout: How to pick a chord tone for each chop: - follow — cycle root → 3rd → 5th → root → 3rd → 5th - ascending — climb chord tones across each chord - porter — root → 5th → octave → 5th → root (Porter Robinson) - root — every chop = root of current chord source_root: Note name the source vocal is "in". Pitch shifts are computed relative to this. Default "C". If you don't know, leave as C; the result will still be musical relative to the chord changes, just not in absolute key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bpmNo
layoutNofollow
source_rootNoC
item_indicesYes
beats_per_chordNo
chord_progressionYes
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains the internal process (walking chops, determining chord, picking tone, applying pitch shift via take_set_pitch) and notes that the result may sound unnatural. It also addresses the source_root behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention whether the operation is destructive (modifies existing items) or creates new ones, leaving some ambiguity.

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 well-structured with a warning, then process explanation, then parameter details. Each sentence adds value, though the warning section is somewhat lengthy. It could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, provides usage context, warns about alternatives, and explains the internal logic. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of return value, but that is not critical.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains every parameter in full detail, including item_indices usage, chord_progression format, defaults for beats_per_chord and bpm, all layout options with examples, and source_root semantics. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the purpose: 'Retune each chop to a chord tone.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool chop_pipeline, noting that this is a niche, experimental alternative. The verb 'retune' and resource 'chops' are specific.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use and when not to use: it warns that this is not professional and recommends chop_pipeline as the correct default. It states 'DO NOT use it as your default chop workflow' and limits usage to stylized experimental effects like glitch/granular.

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/xDarkzx/Reaper-MCP'

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