Check whether a REAPER track's master/parent send is enabled by passing its track_index. Returns ret: 1 for enabled or 0 for disabled, so you can verify routing before mixing.
Get the master/parent send state of a track.
Returns: Object with 'ret' field (1 = enabled, 0 = disabled).
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds the return value semantics ('ret' field with 1/0 meaning), which is useful but does not disclose error behavior, track-index validity, or other operational details beyond the annotation.
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 definition is two compact sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the return format.
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 low-complexity getter with no output schema, the description supplies the return field meaning, which helps the agent interpret results. The main remaining gap is track_index semantics, but the basic purpose and output shape are covered adequately.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter, track_index. The description only implies that it identifies 'a track' and does not clarify indexing base, range, or any other semantics, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('master/parent send state of a track'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling setters such as set_track_master_send and from other send-related tools like get_track_num_sends.
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?
Usage is implied by the getter phrasing: an agent would use this when it needs to inspect a track's master/parent send state. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives or mention related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.