Retrieve a REAPER track's details by index, including its name, volume, pan, mute and solo state, MIDI or audio content, FX names, and role for mixing and production tasks.
Get information about a track.
Returns: Object with 'info': guid, name, volume, volume_db, pan, muted, soloed, has_midi, has_audio, fx_names, role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully enumerates the returned fields (volume, muted, fx_names, role, etc.), but omits any disclosure about index conventions, error behavior for an invalid index, or whether the operation is a pure read. Some added value, but significant gaps remain.
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?
Front-loaded purpose followed by a compact field list with no wasted prose. Efficient and readable, though the Returns block could be framed more clearly.
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?
Because there is no output schema, the description reasonably fills that role by listing returned fields. But with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, an agent still lacks enough information to call the tool confidently (index basis and invalid-index 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 the single critical parameter (track_index) is completely undocumented. The most important semantic - whether it is 0-based, 1-based, or relative to selected tracks - is absent from both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate.
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 track'), which clearly separates it from get_all_tracks and get_master_track. However, it does not explicitly call out sibling differentiation (e.g. that it retrieves a single track by index), so it falls short of a 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 indication of when to use this versus alternatives like get_all_tracks or get_master_track, and no prerequisites or index-range caveats. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.