Remove a specific media item from a track in REAPER by specifying the track index and item index.
Delete a media item.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_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?
The destructiveHint annotation already communicates that this is a destructive operation, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, undoable, or what happens to contained MIDI notes, but there is no contradiction with 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 very short and front-loaded with the core action, containing no filler. However, it is slightly too terse to cover important context such as the indexing scheme, which could have been added in a few extra words without harming conciseness.
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 destructive operation with a destructiveHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks guidance on undo behavior, permanence, index base, and the relationship to selection-based deletion, which leaves some important gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.
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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not clarify that track_index and item_index identify the target item, nor does it specify indexing conventions or how the two indices relate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic value.
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 uses an explicit verb and object ('Delete a media item'), clearly identifying the operation and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_take or delete_midi_note, though it could more explicitly differentiate from delete_selected_items by mentioning that it targets an item by index rather than current selection.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_selected_items, clear_midi_item, or delete_take. The sibling list contains several deletion-related tools, and the description gives the agent no criteria for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.