Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_remove_fx

Destructive

Remove an FX from a track's chain using track and FX indices. Later FX indices shift down automatically.

Instructions

Remove an FX from a track's chain. Indices of later FX 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>",
      "fx_index": "<fx_index>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_remove_fx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
fx_indexYes0-based FX index within the track chain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining that 'Indices of later FX shift down by one', a key side effect. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand the impact on the track chain.

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: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a crucial behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter destructive operation without an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the main action and side effect. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., invalid indices) or confirm success, which would be useful but are not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('0-based track index', '0-based FX index within the track chain'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 the action: 'Remove an FX from a track's chain', using a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies the effect on indices, which distinguishes this from other tools like reaper_set_fx_enabled that disable but do not remove.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use for removal, but does not mention scenarios where disabling might be preferred or any prerequisites like track existence. This is a basic level of guidance.

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