Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_ping

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies that the Reaper bridge script is running and reachable, returning a ping status and Reaper version. Use this as a first diagnostic step when any other tool fails.

Instructions

Check that the Reaper bridge is alive and report Reaper's version.

Call this first when anything fails — a clean response confirms both the MCP server and the in-Reaper bridge script are running and reachable.

Returns: {pong: bool, reaper_version: str}.

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_ping"
  }
}

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds that the tool reports Reaper's version and returns a specific structure, providing extra context without contradicting 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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, return. Front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary text.

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?

For a simple health-check tool, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and return format. The annotations provide safety profile, and the schema covers the single parameter. No gaps.

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?

Parameter 'response_format' is fully defined in the schema with default and description. The description does not add new information about parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Check that the Reaper bridge is alive') and specifies the resource and action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other operations like adding tracks or effects.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('Call this first when anything fails') and explains what a clean response confirms, giving clear guidance on usage context.

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