Select a specific track in REAPER, optionally deselecting all others first, to target mixing, editing, or automation actions.
Select a track.
Args: exclusive: If True, deselect other tracks first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exclusive | No | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that exclusive=True deselects other tracks first, which is useful, but says nothing about what selection state means, behavior on an invalid index, or whether multi-selection is otherwise possible.
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?
Two short lines with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded. The docstring-style 'Args:' block is slightly awkward but efficient.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about the selection semantics, return value, and error behavior. It covers only the exclusive flag, leaving significant gaps for a state-mutating selection 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 description coverage is 0%, and track_index is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description. The description does add meaning to the exclusive flag beyond its type/default ('deselect other tracks first'), partially compensating, but the required parameter remains undocumented.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('Select a track'), so an agent knows the operation. However it offers no differentiation from siblings like select_all_tracks or select_comp_lane, so the agent must infer that this acts on a single track.
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 on when to use this versus select_all_tracks, unselect_all_tracks, or the comp-lane selection tools. The only context given is the exclusive flag, not the scenario that calls for it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.