Remove a send from a REAPER track by specifying the track and send indexes. Use it to clean up routing when a track no longer needs to feed another bus or effect.
Delete a send from a track.
Args: track_index: Source track index (0-based). send_index: Send index (0-based) to delete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| send_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only implies a destructive mutation via the verb 'Delete'. It does not disclose whether the deletion is irreversible, what happens to remaining sends, or whether permissions or valid indices are required.
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 front-loaded with the purpose in a single clear sentence, followed by a compact Args block for the two parameters. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.
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 mutation with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the purpose and both parameters adequately. However, it omits behavioral context such as irreversibility and index validity, which would be important for an agent invoking a deletion operation, so it is minimally sufficient rather than fully complete.
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, and it does: track_index is explained as 'Source track index (0-based)' and send_index as 'Send index (0-based) to delete.' This adds meaning beyond the bare integer types in the schema, though it doesn't state valid ranges or how to obtain a valid send index.
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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (send from a track), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling create_send and other send-management tools. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions stated. The description only restates the operation, leaving context about valid track/send state to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.