PampaPilot MCP Server

by LeoLisena

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Guardar proyecto con nombre nuevo

save_project_as

Idempotent

Save the current REAPER project as a new RPP file in a specified path, ensuring it stays within allowed session roots.

Instructions

Guarda como RPP nuevo dentro de las raíces de sesiones permitidas.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_ref": "<project_ref>",
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "save_project_as"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_ref`	Yes
`project_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the constraint about allowed session roots but does not disclose overwrite behavior or requirements for project_ref, so it adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no filler; the description is appropriately short and front-loaded, with every word contributing to the core meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 0% parameter coverage and no behavioral details like overwrite policies, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, despite having an output schema and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It hints that project_path must be within allowed session roots but does not clarify the meaning of project_ref or the relationship between the two parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Guarda como' (save as) with resource 'RPP nuevo' and a scope constraint 'dentro de las raíces de sesiones permitidas', making it clear this is a save-as operation distinct from sibling audio editing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mentioned exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the name and description, but there are no comparable sibling tools to differentiate from.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.