Extract every MIDI note from a REAPER track item using track and item indices, with optional field filtering for analysis or editing.
Get all MIDI notes from an item.
Returns: Object with list of notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | No | ||
| 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 burden. It says it returns notes but doesn't indicate whether the item must exist, what happens if track_index/item_index are invalid, or the shape of note objects. The minimal 'Returns:' block is the only behavioral hint.
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 very short and front-loaded with the core action. The two-line 'Returns' block adds little, but there's no verbosity to trim.
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 read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and fully undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. It should at least document the parameters and note constraints such as valid indices.
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 the description does not explain track_index, item_index, or the fields parameter. Parameters are effectively undocumented, which is a serious gap for a 3-param tool.
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) plus resource (MIDI notes from an item), which is clear enough to distinguish it from the many sibling mutators like add_midi_note or delete_midi_note. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_midi_item or get_selected_midi_notes, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 tool versus alternatives such as get_midi_item or get_selected_midi_notes. The description gives no context about preconditions or selection state.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.