Save the current REAPER project to a specified .rpp path, creating parent directories automatically when needed.
Save the current project to a specific path (.rpp). Creates parent dirs if needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the side effect that parent directories are created and the .rpp format, but says nothing about overwrite behavior for an existing file, permission requirements, or what a success response looks like.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core action leads and the side effect follows immediately.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, format, and one notable side effect. Only ambiguous edge cases like overwriting an existing project file are left unaddressed.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single 'path' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It adds the file format (.rpp) and the directory-creation behavior, but does not clarify whether the path should be absolute, include the extension, or point to a new vs existing file.
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 ('Save') and resource ('the current project') plus the 'as' semantics of saving to a caller-supplied path, with the file format (.rpp) named. An agent can distinguish it from new_project or render, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with a plain save operation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many siblings. The usage is implied only by the tool name; the description never tells the agent when this is the right choice versus new_project or render.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.