Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_clear_envelope

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes all automation points on a track's envelope, with options for volume, pan, or FX parameter targets and optional FX index.

Instructions

Delete every point on an envelope. Same target semantics as reaper_add_envelope_point.

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>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_clear_envelope"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
targetYesWhich envelope to clear
fx_indexNoRequired when target='fx_param'
paramNoRequired when target='fx_param': parameter index or name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it deletes every point on an envelope, which aligns with destructive. It also clarifies the target semantics via reference. No contradiction.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides targeting context. Concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and is destructive, the description covers the core action and target semantics. However, it does not mention the return value (likely void) or the effect on the envelope after clearing. With no output schema, a bit more detail would be helpful.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by referencing the target semantics of a sibling tool, which helps understand the 'target' parameter. However, it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers.

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 verb (Delete), the resource (every point on an envelope), and references sibling tool reaper_add_envelope_point for target semantics. It is specific and distinguishes this tool from others.

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 implies usage by referencing 'same target semantics as reaper_add_envelope_point', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reaper_set_track_automation_mode or reaper_add_fx_to_track. No exclusions or context are 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