Skip to main content
Glama
TwelveTake-Studios

reaper-mcp

by TwelveTake-Studios
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

render_project

Destructive

Render the project's master mix to an audio file. Apart from the path, source and range, the project's own render settings apply: its format (a .wav extension selects WAV), and its normalization, limiter, fades, trim and pad, which the…

Instructions

Render the project's master mix to an audio file. Apart from the path, source and range, the project's own render settings apply: its format (a .wav extension selects WAV), and its normalization, limiter, fades, trim and pad, which the response lists in processing (empty when none applies).

If the target file already exists, this returns an error unless overwrite=True (which deletes the existing file first). This is explicit because REAPER's own behavior on existing files (prompt vs auto-increment) is a user preference, and the overwrite prompt blocks unattended rendering.

Args: output_path: Full path for output file (extension determines format). start_time: Start time in seconds (None = project start). end_time: End time in seconds (None = project end). tail_seconds: Extra seconds to render at end for reverb tails. overwrite: True to replace an existing file at output_path. skip_postprocessing: True to render without the project's normalization, limiter, fades, trim and pad, for a file you will measure or compare.

Returns: Object with render status, REAPER's computed output target(s) and processing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_timeNo
overwriteNo
start_timeNo
output_pathYes
tail_secondsNo
skip_postprocessingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.9.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / skip_postprocessing
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.7.3

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds the details that matter: existing files cause an error unless overwrite=True, which deletes the file first, and that REAPER's own prompt behavior is a user preference that would block unattended rendering. It also explains which project settings are silently applied and surfaced in `processing`.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the overwrite caveat, then structured Args/Returns. The rationale about REAPER's prompt preference is a little long, but it justifies a non-obvious safety behavior, so it earns its space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the returned object (render status, computed output targets, `processing`, empty when no processing applies). Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and does: output_path is a full path whose extension selects format, start_time/end_time are seconds with None meaning project start/end, tail_seconds is extra render time for reverb tails, and skip_postprocessing disables specific named processing stages.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: render the project's master mix to an audio file. That clearly separates it from item/track-level operations, but it never names render_region, the sibling that also renders audio, so the boundary between master-mix and region rendering must be inferred.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear use-case context for skip_postprocessing ('for a file you will measure or compare') and for overwrite=True, which is the main decision an agent faces here. It stops short of explicitly routing to render_region when a region rather than the full mix is wanted.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools