List all REAPER project markers (not regions) with index, name, time, and color data for AI-driven editing and navigation.
List all markers (not regions): {enum_index, index, name, time_sec, color_rgb}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'List' implies a safe read but nothing states permissions, side effects, or ordering. The enumerated return fields are useful context, but they largely duplicate the output schema rather than disclosing new behavioral traits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and the disambiguating constraint. The trailing field enumeration is compact but partly redundant with the output schema, so it does not quite earn a 5.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is listed, what is excluded, and the shape of each entry. Only the safety/permission profile is left unstated.
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 there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly omits parameter discussion rather than inventing filter options.
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 and resource ('List all markers') and immediately scopes it against the nearest sibling with '(not regions)', so an agent can separate this from list_regions without opening either schema. The returned field list further pins down what a 'marker' means here.
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?
The parenthetical '(not regions)' gives a clear exclusion that steers the agent toward list_regions for the other case, which is strong implied routing. It stops short of naming list_regions explicitly or stating when listing markers is the right choice, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.