Set a track's recording status in REAPER: arm it to prepare for recording, or disarm to prevent recording.
Arm or disarm a track for recording.
Args: arm: True to arm, False to disarm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| arm | No | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=false already indicates the operation is not destructive. The description adds the core behavior (arming/disarming) but does not disclose side effects, such as whether the track's armed state is toggled or set, or any impact on recording. It provides minimal extra context beyond the annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear title and an Args section that front-loads the essential parameter explanation. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete because it fails to document the required track_index parameter. It also provides no information about return values, error conditions, or the effect of the operation on recording state, leaving an agent to guess at crucial details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter explanations. It explains the 'arm' parameter ('True to arm, False to disarm'), but completely omits the required 'track_index' parameter, leaving its meaning and format undocumented. This is a significant gap for a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Arm or disarm a track for recording.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like arm_track_envelope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other track-related tools, though the name and action make it unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about typical workflows. It simply states the operation without suggesting when it is appropriate or what conditions must be met.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.