Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_list_items

Read-onlyIdempotent

List media and MIDI items on a track, returning index, position, length, mute status, and take name.

Instructions

List the media/MIDI items on a track.

Each entry: {index, position_sec, length_sec, muted, take_name}. Item index is 0-based within the track and is what the item tools expect.

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_list_items"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds value by noting that item index is 0-based within the track and that item tools expect this index, providing context beyond structured fields.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a clear format definition and an important note about index usage.

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 presence of an output schema and the description's explicit listing of the entry format (index, position_sec, length_sec, muted, take_name), the description is complete for a list tool. No further explanation is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on output format rather than parameter details.

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 'List the media/MIDI items on a track', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_delete_item or reaper_insert_midi_item, which perform different operations.

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 listing items but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for inspection before modification). It does not mention when not to use it.

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