Retrieve all points from a REAPER track envelope by track index and envelope name, returning time, value, and shape. Use it to inspect or edit automation curves for mixing.
Get all points from an envelope.
Args: envelope_name: Envelope name.
Returns: Object with list of points (time, value, shape).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| envelope_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload structure (time, value, shape), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, and 'Get' signals a read-only operation. It says nothing about ordering, empty-envelope behavior, permissions, or errors, which is a meaningful gap for a tool with zero 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?
Front-loaded with the purpose and short overall, but the 'Args: envelope_name: Envelope name' block is pure boilerplate that restates the schema with zero added information and could be dropped without loss.
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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return shape, which is the most important omission to fill. The unaddressed track_index parameter and lack of any sibling differentiation leave it only adequate.
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% and there are two required parameters. The description only restates envelope_name ('Envelope name') without adding any format or semantics, and track_index — the parameter that actually identifies which track's envelope to read — is documented nowhere at all.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Get all points from an envelope', which tells the agent this returns the full point set rather than a count or a single point. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_fx_envelope_points (FX envelope) or get_envelope_point_count, so the agent must infer the track-vs-FX distinction from 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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_envelope_point_count, get_track_envelope, or get_fx_envelope_points. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get'. No prerequisites (e.g., that the envelope must exist) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.