Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_add_send

Creates a send routing from a source track to a destination track. Returns the index of the new send.

Instructions

Create a send from one track to another. Returns the new send's index.

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": {
      "src_track_index": "<src_track_index>",
      "dest_track_index": "<dest_track_index>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_add_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
src_track_indexYes0-based index of the source track
dest_track_indexYes0-based index of the destination track

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it creates a send and returns an index, but doesn't explain side effects like routing changes or track state modifications. Adequate but minimal.

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 short sentences (17 words total) convey purpose and return value with no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 creation tool with 2 parameters, the description covers the essential action and return value. It lacks error conditions (e.g., invalid track indices) but annotations and schema fill some gaps. Almost complete.

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% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and types. It doesn't explain how indices relate to track ordering or what valid ranges are (though schema provides minimum). Baseline of 3 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 ('create a send'), the resource ('from one track to another'), and the return value ('Returns the new send's index'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_send' and 'list_sends'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'list_sends' to check existing sends before adding). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use context is given.

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