Remove an unwanted take from a REAPER media item by specifying the track, item, and take index. The take is activated before deletion.
Delete a specific take from a media item.
Args: take_index: Take index to delete (0-based). The take is activated first, then removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_index | Yes | ||
| take_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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious side effect: the take is activated before being removed, so deleting has a state-changing consequence beyond removal. It still omits error behaviour for an out-of-range index and whether remaining takes are renumbered.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a short Args block; nothing is padded. The Args block covering only one of three parameters is a structural weakness, but the text itself is tight.
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?
No output schema or return-value detail is needed for a delete, and destructiveness is covered by annotations. However, for a three-index operation with 0% schema coverage, the definition is still missing the meaning of track_index/item_index and any post-delete state or failure behaviour.
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% across three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It documents only take_index (0-based) and leaves track_index and item_index completely unexplained, compensating for roughly one third of the gap.
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 and resource ("Delete a specific take from a media item"), which an agent can distinguish from delete_track, delete_item and take_fx_delete. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to how to obtain a valid take_index (get_takes / get_active_take are the obvious siblings). The agent must infer everything about context from the purpose line alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.