Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_set_track_record_arm

Idempotent

Arm or disarm a track for recording by specifying its index and the desired armed state. Returns the updated track state.

Instructions

Arm or disarm a track for recording. Returns the updated track state.

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>",
      "armed": "<armed>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_set_track_record_arm"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
armedYesTrue to arm, False to disarm

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 declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety aspects. The description adds that it returns the updated track state. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on recording behavior or audio engine, but with annotations, the bar is lower. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that covers purpose and return value with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It lacks details about error conditions or behavior when track index is invalid, but with idempotentHint and openWorldHint, this is a minor gap. Overall 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (track_index and armed) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 clearly states the verb 'Arm or disarm' and the resource 'a track for recording', and mentions returning the updated state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reaper_set_track_mute or reaper_set_track_solo.

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. It does not specify prerequisites, related actions like recording transport, or when not to use it. Given sibling tools like reaper_set_track_record_input, usage context is missing.

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