Remove a specific track in REAPER by its zero-based index. Use this to delete unwanted tracks while protecting the master track.
Delete a track.
Args: track_index: Track index to delete (0-based). Cannot delete master track (-1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 annotation destructiveHint=true already flags that this tool mutates state. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotation: track_index is 0-based and the master track (-1) cannot be deleted. It does not spell out side effects like removal of items or child tracks, but the destructive annotation lowers the burden and the critical prohibition is disclosed.
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 minimal and front-loaded. The purpose is stated in the first three words, and the only supporting detail is the parameter explanation. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no fluff or repetition of the schema.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this is complete. The agent knows what to delete, which index is valid (0-based), which index is prohibited, and that the operation is destructive via annotations. Nothing necessary to make the call correctly is missing.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. It explains that track_index is 0-based and explicitly calls out the forbidden value -1 (the master track). This gives an agent the semantic information absent from the raw integer schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a track.' This clearly distinguishes it from the many delete_* siblings (delete_midi_note, delete_take, delete_item) by naming the exact object being removed. No ambiguity remains about what resource this tool operates on.
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?
The intended use is implied by the name and opening sentence: call this when you want to remove a track by its index. However, the description does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any prerequisite, such as obtaining a valid track index first. It also only partially guides usage by stating that the master track cannot be deleted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.