Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_get_project_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get key project metrics from REAPER: name, length, tempo, cursor position, transport state, and track count for real-time status monitoring.

Instructions

Return the current project's name, length, tempo, cursor position, transport state, and track count.

Returns a dict: {name, length_sec, tempo_bpm, cursor_sec, playing, paused, recording, track_count}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "reaper_get_project_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
response_formatNo'markdown' for human-readable output or 'json' for machine-readablemarkdown

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description aligns with. The description adds specific details about the returned dict fields, beyond just stating it's a read operation.

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 plus a clear code block listing the return keys. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simple read nature, full schema coverage, output schema present, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns and how to control output format.

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 parameter (response_format) is well-documented in the schema with enum values. The description does not add extra meaning beyond reminding that both formats are available, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current project's name, length, tempo, cursor position, transport state, and track count'), clearly distinguishing this read-only info tool from siblings that modify or list specific elements.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

No explicit when/when-not guidance, but the purpose and sibling names (e.g., reaper_list_tracks, reaper_get_track_state) make it clear this tool is for a holistic overview, not detailed track-level queries.

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