Retrieve the current preset name for an effect by track and FX index in REAPER to identify which preset is active.
Get the current preset name of an FX.
Returns: Object with current preset name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' plus the stated return shape establishes this as a safe read that returns an object with the preset name, which is useful, but nothing is said about error behavior when the track/fx index is invalid or out of range.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The 'Returns:' line is slightly redundant with the first sentence but still compact and earns most of its space by disclosing the return shape.
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 output schema the Returns line usefully names the return value, but the definition leaves the FX scope (track vs take vs master) and index semantics unstated, and offers no annotations to cover safety or mutation behavior.
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 neither parameter is mentioned in the description. track_index and fx_index are bare integers with no stated base, range, or relationship, so the description does nothing to compensate for the undocumented 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current preset name of an FX') and is clearly distinguishable from set_fx_preset, save_fx_preset and get_fx_presets by the read-only singular-target framing. It does not say which FX scope (track vs take) the indices refer to, which matters given sibling families take_fx_* and track_fx_*.
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 and no alternative named. The agent must infer on its own that get_fx_presets (plural) is the list variant and that set_fx_preset is the mutation counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.