Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_set_send_volume_db

Idempotent

Set the volume level of a specific track send in decibels. Specify the source track, send index, and desired dB value to adjust the send's level.

Instructions

Set the level of a track send in dB.

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>",
      "send_index": "<send_index>",
      "db": "<db>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_set_send_volume_db"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based index of the source track
send_indexYes0-based send index from reaper_list_sends
dbYesSend level in dB. 0 = unity

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's minimal statement is acceptable. However, it does not add context beyond what annotations provide, such as immediate effect or error handling.

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 of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb and key object. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 setter with 3 required parameters, idempotent and non-destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that send_index should come from reaper_list_sends, but that is covered in the schema.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline score of 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 'Set the level of a track send in dB' clearly states the action (set), resource (track send level), and unit (dB). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_set_track_volume_db (track volume) and reaper_remove_send (different action).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use reaper_add_send first or how to obtain send_index via reaper_list_sends. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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