Splits all takes of a selected media item into individual overlapping items on the same track, letting you edit or process each take separately.
Explode all takes of a media item in place (each take becomes its own overlapping 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds that takes become overlapping items, which is useful context beyond annotations, but it doesn't explain what 'in place' means precisely, whether existing items are replaced, or what happens to the original media item. The added value is moderate given annotation coverage.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core operation.
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?
With no annotations covering parameter semantics, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more. It fails to explain parameters, side effects, or return values, making it incomplete for a destructive mutation tool with two required integer parameters.
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 for both parameters (item_index, track_index). Instead, it provides no information about parameter meaning, required values, indexing base, or how to locate the target item and track. This is a significant 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 (explode) and resource (all takes of a media item) with the resulting behavior (each take becomes its own overlapping item). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_takes, set_active_take, and crop_to_active_take, which operate on takes but don't explode them. It is clearer than a vague purpose statement but not as precise as naming the exact Reaper action or differentiating further.
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 tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_item, split_item, or crop_to_active_take. The description implies a transformation but does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions. This leaves usage ambiguous for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.