Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_add_marker

Add a marker to a Reaper project at a given time in seconds, with an optional label. Returns marker details.

Instructions

Add a project marker at a time. Returns {id, is_region, position_sec}.

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": {
      "position_sec": "<position_sec>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_add_marker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
position_secYesMarker time in seconds
nameNoMarker label

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the return value structure ('{id, is_region, position_sec}'), which adds value beyond annotations. Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description aligns. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or authorization needs, which are relevant given the openWorldHint.

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?

The description is extremely concise: a single sentence stating the action and a brief note on the return value. Every word serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with two parameters and a clear action, the description provides the essential information: what it does and what it returns. However, it does not address the openWorldHint or differentiate itself from siblings beyond the basic action. It is adequate but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Both parameters are already well-described in the input schema (position_sec: 'Marker time in seconds', name: 'Marker label') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a project marker') and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_delete_marker or reaper_goto_marker by indicating it is for adding markers.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and action.

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