Remove a specific automation envelope point from a track's envelope in REAPER. Use it to clear unwanted automation data at a given point index.
Delete an envelope point.
Args: envelope_name: Envelope name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| point_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes | ||
| envelope_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'delete' but does not disclose reversibility, undo availability, what happens to point indices after deletion, or required track state (armed/shown envelope). For a destructive mutation this is a significant gap.
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?
Very short and front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the 'Args:' block restates only one parameter and the whole body is under-specified rather than efficient. Brevity here reflects a missing spec, not tight prose.
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?
Destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, no undo information, and 0% parameter coverage. An agent cannot safely determine preconditions, index validity, or side effects from this definition.
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%, and the description only documents one of three parameters (envelope_name), leaving track_index and point_index entirely unexplained. It must compensate for the coverage gap and does not.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Delete an envelope point') but is nearly a tautology and offers no differentiation from sibling delete_fx_envelope_point, delete_midi_note, or delete_marker. An agent must already know envelope-specific semantics to use it.
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?
No when-to-use context, no mention of alternatives like clear_envelope or delete_fx_envelope_point, and no prerequisites. The agent gets only the obvious fact that it deletes a point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.