Retrieve MIDI item details like position, length, and note count from a REAPER track using track and item indices.
Get information about a MIDI item.
Returns: Object with item info including position, length, note count.
| 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. It does disclose the shape of the return object (position, length, note count), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about indexing conventions, error behavior for invalid indices, or whether the lookup is read-only/idempotent.
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 with a clearly front-loaded purpose and a structured 'Returns:' block; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but structurally it is clean and easy to parse.
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 the description is minimally sufficient, and it partially covers the return values in the absence of an output schema. It leaves the index parameters entirely unexplained and offers no routing against near-duplicate siblings, so gaps remain.
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?
Both parameters (track_index, item_index) have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no semantics for them — it never says whether indices are 0-based, whether they refer to the project or a folder, or what happens if they are out of range. With a coverage gap this large, the description should compensate and does not.
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 information about a MIDI item') and even enumerates the returned fields (position, length, note count). However, with siblings like get_item_info and get_midi_notes in the same namespace, it does nothing to explain why an agent would pick this tool over those, so it falls short of the sibling-differentiating 5.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_item_info, get_track_items, get_midi_notes, or get_selected_midi_notes, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.