Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_delete_item

Destructive

Removes a media or MIDI item from a track using track and item indices. Later items shift down by one.

Instructions

Delete a media/MIDI item from a track. Later item indices shift down by one.

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>",
      "item_index": "<item_index>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_delete_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
item_indexYes0-based item index from reaper_list_items

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds a specific behavioral effect: 'Later item indices shift down by one.' This informs the agent about index reordering, which is critical for correctness. No contradictions with annotations.

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 clearly, and the second adds a crucial behavioral note. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 deletion tool with full schema coverage and destructive annotations, the description captures the core action and index shifting effect. It could mention undo behavior or envelope handling, but is generally 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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only contextualizes the operation, not the parameters themselves.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a media/MIDI item from a track,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_delete_marker (deletes markers) and reaper_delete_track (deletes tracks).

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 for deleting items, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. It mentions index shifting, which is helpful for usage context but does not provide exclusions like 'use reaper_delete_track to remove entire track.'

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