Add a new track to REAPER at a specific position or at the end. Optionally assign a name to organize your project.
Insert a new track at the specified index.
Args: index: Position to insert track (0-based). If not specified, adds at end. name: Optional name for the new track.
Returns: Info about the created track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| index | No |
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. It discloses the optional index default and that a result about the created track is returned, but it does not describe side effects, permissions, undo behavior, or whether existing tracks are affected.
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 front-loaded and appropriately sized. The Args and Returns sections are justified because the input schema has no parameter descriptions and no output schema exists.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs: purpose, both parameters, default behavior, and a basic return indication. It omits deeper side-effect context, but otherwise is complete enough to call.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that index is 0-based, defaults to appending at the end, and that name is optional. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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 and resource: 'Insert a new track at the specified index.' It clearly identifies a track-creation operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_track, delete_track, create_bus, and insert_audio_file.
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 for adding tracks, and the index default ('adds at end') gives some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as create_bus or insert_audio_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.