Retrieve all regions in the current REAPER project with index, name, start/end times, and color to inspect or automate region-based edits.
List all regions in the project: {index, name, start_sec, end_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 full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, scope, ordering, or pagination. The field list it does give is redundant with the output schema, so it adds no behavioral context beyond structured data.
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 with zero padding; the resource is named first and the payload follows. Every token earns its place.
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 trivial no-argument read tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks only usage context and a read-only reassurance, which for a simple list operation is a minor gap.
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 per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify or omit.
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 regions in the project') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent immediately knows what it gets. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighboring region tools like batch_rename_regions or batch_export_regions.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as list_markers or the batch_*_regions tools, and no prerequisites or context. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.