Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_get_track_state

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve comprehensive state of a single track including name, volume, pan, mute/solo/arm status, and FX count.

Instructions

Return name, volume (dB), pan, mute/solo/arm, and FX count for a single track.

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>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_get_track_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the non-destructive nature is clear. The description adds that volume is in dB and lists returned fields. It doesn't mention any side effects or hidden behaviors, so it's adequate given the 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?

The description is a single sentence that concisely conveys the tool's output without unnecessary detail or fluff.

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?

With annotations and a complete schema, the description is sufficient to understand what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema (not shown) further reduces the need for return value explanation. It is complete for the complexity level.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (track_index as 0-based index, response_format with enum). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and lists the specific fields (name, volume, pan, mute/solo/arm, FX count) for a single track, making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_list_tracks (all tracks) and reaper_get_master_track (master).

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?

The description indicates the tool is for a single track, implying usage when you need detailed state of one track. It does not explicitly exclude when to use alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides differentiation (e.g., list_tracks for overview, setter tools for changes).

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