Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_set_cursor

Idempotent

Move the edit cursor to a specified time in seconds and return the resulting cursor position, with an option to scroll the arrange view.

Instructions

Move the edit cursor to a time in seconds. Returns the resulting cursor position.

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": {
      "time_sec": "<time_sec>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_set_cursor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
time_secYesCursor position in seconds from project start
move_viewNoScroll the arrange view to follow the cursor

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description accurately states the tool modifies the cursor position and returns the new value. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align. No contradictions. The description adds value by noting the return value, but does not elaborate on potential side effects beyond what is implied by the move_view parameter.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and return behavior. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the primary behavior and return value. However, it does not mention edge cases such as invalid time_sec values or behavior when move_view is false. Slightly above adequate.

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% with both parameters already described. The description does not add new meaning beyond restating the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no additional clarification is provided.

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'edit cursor' with a specific parameter 'time in seconds'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like reaper_goto_marker (which jumps to markers) and transport controls.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reaper_goto_marker or reaper_transport_play. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios.

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