Retrieve current REAPER project details, including file path, sample rate, length, play state, time selection, and track, region, and marker counts, to orient yourself before editing.
Get an overview of the current REAPER project: file path, sample rate, length in seconds, play state, track count, region count, marker count, time selection. Call this first to orient yourself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full disclosure burden — and it discharges most of it by enumerating exactly what is returned (path, sample rate, length, play state, counts, time selection). It doesn't mention error behavior (e.g. no project open), which is the only real gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: the first front-loads the returned data, the second gives the sequencing cue. No filler, nothing restating the name or title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the field enumeration is what makes this tool callable without guesswork. Only missing piece is failure-mode behavior when no project is loaded, a minor gap for a zero-arg read.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed to orient on the current project.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get an overview') plus the exact resource (current REAPER project) and enumerates the fields returned. An agent can distinguish it from list_tracks, list_regions, and list_markers, which each cover only a subset of this data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Call this first to orient yourself' gives a clear, explicit usage cue about sequencing. It doesn't name an alternative or state when not to use it, but for an orientation tool the guidance is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.