Route audio by creating a send from a source track to a destination track in REAPER, returning the send index.
Create a send from one track to another.
Args: src_track: Source track index (0-based). dest_track: Destination track index (0-based).
Returns: Object with send_index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| src_track | Yes | ||
| dest_track | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns an object with send_index, which is useful. Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, so the description carries some burden. It does not explain behavior on invalid track indices, whether existing sends are overwritten, or any other side effects. The return info adds some transparency, but it's not comprehensive.
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: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean argument list and a return note. There is no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter meaning, and return format. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., track existence) or contrast with sidechain sends, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete. The missing usage guidance is the main gap.
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 compensate. It explains each parameter's role ('src_track: Source track index', 'dest_track: Destination track index') and clarifies they are 0-based, adding meaning beyond the plain integer type in the schema. This is sufficient for the two parameters.
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: 'Create a send from one track to another.' It specifies the verb (create), the resource (send), and the relationship (from one track to another). This is distinct from sibling tools like delete_send, set_send_volume, and setup_sidechain_send, so an agent can readily identify the purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many send-related tools (e.g., setup_sidechain_send, delete_send), but no mention of when to prefer create_send over them. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.