Retrieve detailed information about a specific track in REAPER by its index, including name, volume, pan, mute/solo state, MIDI/audio presence, FX list, and role.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling for out-of-range track_index or any constraints beyond the basic read operation.
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 compact and well-structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by a concise return-field list. No words are wasted.
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?
The return fields are documented, which is important because there is no output schema. However, the single required parameter is left under-described, and error behavior is absent, so the definition is adequate but not fully complete.
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 never mentions track_index or its semantics (e.g., zero-based indexing, valid range). The agent is left with only the parameter name and integer type, which is not enough for reliable invocation.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a track'), and the return field list makes it clear this is a general track-info getter. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_track_peak or get_track_fx_chunk, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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 about when to use this tool versus the many related track getters, nor any exclusions or alternatives. The usage is only implied by the name and basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.