Removes a single automation point from an FX parameter envelope by index, allowing you to clear unwanted parameter changes in REAPER.
Delete an automation point from an FX parameter envelope.
Args: point_index: Point index (0-based) to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_index | Yes | ||
| param_index | Yes | ||
| point_index | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Delete' (implying mutation) but doesn't state reversibility (undo?), error behavior on invalid index, or effect on envelope point count. Minimal behavioral context.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a concise param note. No waste, though the Args block format is minimal.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should clarify index semantics for all params, behavior on invalid input, and relationship to sibling tools.
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 coverage is 0% and 4 required parameters exist. The description only documents 'point_index' with a brief note (0-based). The other three (track_index, fx_index, param_index) are undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ("Delete") and resource ("automation point from an FX parameter envelope"). Distinguishable from sibling 'delete_envelope_point' (track envelope) and 'clear_fx_envelope' (bulk removal), though it doesn't explicitly name these.
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 guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'clear_fx_envelope' or 'delete_envelope_point'. No prerequisites stated (e.g., envelope must exist, indices must be valid).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.