Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_set_tempo

Idempotent

Set the project tempo to a specified BPM value and receive the confirmed tempo. Accepts BPM from 0 to 960.

Instructions

Set the project tempo in BPM. Returns the resulting tempo.

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": {
      "bpm": "<bpm>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_set_tempo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bpmYesProject tempo in beats per minute

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 the description adds 'Returns the resulting tempo', which provides useful information beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions, or other behavioral aspects. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds modest value.

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, with no redundancy or extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and return value.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the essential behavior: setting tempo and returning it. It could mention that the valid range is from >0 to 960, but the schema already defines constraints. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward setter.

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%, so the parameter is already well-documented in the schema as 'Project tempo in beats per minute'. The description repeats 'in BPM' but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. A baseline 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 explicitly states 'Set the project tempo in BPM', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with markers, FX, tracks, etc., as no other tool sets tempo.

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 or when not to use it. It simply states what it does without any context about prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative approaches.

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