Retrieve every REAPER track with index, name, volume, pan, mute, solo, record arm, color, item count, and FX names to inspect and manage project tracks.
List all tracks with index, name, volume (dB), pan (-1..1), mute, solo, record arm, color (RGB or 0 if none), item count, FX names.
| 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. 'List all tracks' implies a non-destructive read and the field enumeration sketches the returned data, but it never explicitly confirms read-only/no-side-effects and says nothing about ordering, empty-project behavior, or performance on large sessions.
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 no filler and the verb up front. The long comma-separated field enumeration is dense and slightly listy, overlapping with the output schema rather than adding selection value, but nothing is wasted.
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 an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and for a zero-parameter read tool it covers the essentials. The only gap is behavioral framing (read-only confirmation, ordering) that annotations would normally supply.
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 and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The 0-param baseline of 4 applies.
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List all tracks') and immediately scopes it with the exact fields returned. The sibling list contains only differently-scoped readers (list_fx, list_regions, list_markers), so an agent can distinguish this tool without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the tool takes no arguments and has no overlapping sibling, so the when-to-use is obvious from the name. However, the description never states conditions, prerequisites, or an alternative (e.g. whether to prefer this over inspecting tracks via other calls).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.