Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by T-Rzeznik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

reaper_set_track_solo

Idempotent

Solo or unsolo a track in REAPER by specifying its index and a boolean solo state. Returns the updated track state.

Instructions

Solo or un-solo a track. 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>",
      "solo": "<solo>"
    },
    "name": "reaper_set_track_solo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes0-based track index
soloYesTrue to solo, False to un-solo

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 declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it returns the updated track state, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like affecting playback or interaction with other track states.

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?

Two short sentences convey the action and return value with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the action and return. However, it could explicitly state that the return is the full track state object, not just the solo flag, but overall it is sufficient.

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%; each parameter is already well described in the input schema ('0-based track index', 'True to solo, False to un-solo'). The tool description adds no further semantic information, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 tool's purpose: 'Solo or un-solo a track. Returns the updated track state.' It uses a specific verb (set) and resource (track solo), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'reaper_set_track_mute' or 'reaper_set_track_volume_db'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when soloing is appropriate, or any exclusion criteria. The sibling list shows many similar track-modifying tools, but no comparative context is provided.

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