Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_add_fx_to_track

Add a specified audio plugin to the end of a track's FX chain, returning the track index, FX index, and plugin name for further manipulation.

Instructions

Add an FX to the end of a track's chain.

Returns {track_index, fx_index, name}. If the plugin can't be found the call fails — re-check the exact string via reaper_list_installed_fx.

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": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "fx_name": "<fx_name>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_add_fx_to_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
fx_nameYesPlugin name as returned by reaper_list_installed_fx, e.g. 'VST3i: Serum (Xfer Records)'. A bare name like 'Serum' works if unambiguous.
show_uiNoPop open the plugin's floating window

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), description explains return value structure and failure mode when plugin not found. Provides useful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences: first states core function, second details return and failure mode. No fluff, efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, description covers return structure and failure handling. Schema fully documents parameters. Complete for its complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds value by explaining the failure case and referencing reaper_list_installed_fx for exact plugin names, which enhances parameter understanding.

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?

States 'Add an FX to the end of a track's chain' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like reaper_remove_fx or reaper_set_fx_enabled.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Clear context for when to use (adding FX to end of chain). Guidance on failure: if plugin not found, re-check with reaper_list_installed_fx. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but this is implied by sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools