Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_add_region

Add a region to the Reaper project timeline by specifying start and end times in seconds. Optionally assign a name to the region.

Instructions

Add a project region spanning [start, end] seconds. 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": {
      "start_sec": "<start_sec>",
      "end_sec": "<end_sec>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_add_region"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
start_secYesRegion start in seconds
end_secYesRegion end in seconds (must be >= start)
nameNoRegion label

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description confirms mutation by saying 'Add' and specifies the return value, but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations already imply, such as side effects or undoing.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and provides the output format. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, input parameters, and return structure. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or explanation of 'is_region', but overall adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'spanning [start, end] seconds' repeats schema fields.

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 region' and specifies the resource (region) with its scope in seconds. It distinguishes from siblings like reaper_add_marker by focusing on regions and providing the return type.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like reaper_add_marker. It implicitly indicates usage for creating regions but lacks exclusion criteria or context.

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