Retrieves detailed properties of a media item in a REAPER project, including position, length, and take data, using track and item indices.
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?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds almost no behavioral context: it only mentions the return type without describing side effects, error behavior, or any nuances like whether the item must be selected. Since the bar is lower given annotations, but the description still offers minimal extra value, a 2 is appropriate.
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 short and uses a 'Returns:' line for structure, which is clean and front-loaded. However, the content is so thin that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It earns a 3 for being brief and organized, but not for being informative.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and the parameters are undocumented, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without knowing what the parameters mean or what the returned object contains. For a simple getter this is borderline inadequate; a 2 reflects the missing parameter semantics and return structure detail.
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%, meaning the parameters track_index and item_index have no descriptions in the schema, and the tool description also fails to explain their meaning or format. The agent is left to guess whether indices are zero-based, how they relate to each other, or what valid ranges are. With two required parameters and no semantic explanation, this is a critical deficiency.
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 clearly states the action (get information) and the resource (media item), and mentions the return of item properties. It is specific enough to know it retrieves item data, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling getters like get_midi_item or get_item_position. A 4 is warranted for clear verb+resource without differentiation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_midi_item, get_track, or the many item-modifying functions. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description leaves the agent to infer usage, which is a significant gap for a generic getter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.