Insert an audio file onto a specific REAPER track at a specified position in seconds. Returns the track and item indices for the created item.
Insert an audio file onto a track.
Args: file_path: Full path to the audio file. position: Position in seconds.
Returns: Object with track_index, item_index of the created item, and position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes | ||
| file_path | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses the return shape. It says nothing about failure modes (missing file, invalid track), permission or project-state requirements, or whether the operation is undoable — meaningful gaps for a mutating insert 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 Args/Returns layout is well organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, and each line earns its place. Slightly terse but no wasted text.
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?
Since there is no output schema, describing the return object (track_index, item_index, position) is genuinely useful and partially compensates. But with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is only minimally sufficient for a mutating tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents file_path ('Full path') and position ('in seconds', giving units), but omits track_index entirely even though it is a required parameter, leaving one of three inputs undefined.
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 and resource ('Insert an audio file onto a track'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as create_midi_item or duplicate_item, which a caller must infer from the audio-vs-MIDI 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_midi_item, duplicate_item, or paste_items, and no stated prerequisites such as the file needing to exist or the track needing to be valid. The caller must infer all of this.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.