Fetch a media item's position, length, and take information using track and item indexes. Inspect item properties for precise editing, mixing, or mastering in REAPER.
Get information about a media item.
Returns: Object with item properties (position, length, take info, etc.).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read, and it lists some returned properties, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when indexes are invalid, or whether indices are zero- or one-based.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The return summary is a separate line rather than padding the purpose statement.
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 annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more. It hints at returned fields but omits parameter meaning, indexing conventions, and failure modes, leaving real gaps for a tool whose only inputs are two unlabeled integers.
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% for two required parameters, and the description never mentions track_index or item_index or their valid ranges/semantics. With two undocumented required params, the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 (get) and resource (information about a media item), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_track_items or get_midi_item, but the 'media item properties' framing is reasonably specific.
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 versus alternatives such as get_track_items, get_midi_item, get_active_take, or get_takes. The agent must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.