Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by TwelveTake-Studios
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_play_rate

Idempotent

Adjust REAPER project playback speed between 0.25x and 4x, with 1.0 as normal, to control tempo for practice, editing, or production.

Instructions

Set the project playback rate, 0.25 to 4 (1.0 is normal speed).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rate": "<rate>"
    },
    "name": "set_play_rate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the valid range (0.25 to 4), which is useful behavioral context, but is silent on whether changes take effect during playback, whether pitch follows speed, and whether out-of-range values are clamped or rejected.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the constraint and the reference point. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering idempotency and safety, this is nearly complete. The remaining gap is the out-of-range behavior and any pitch/latency side effects, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% – the single 'rate' parameter is typed only as a number with no description. The description compensates well by supplying the valid range (0.25 to 4) and the reference value (1.0 is normal speed), though it leaves open whether the bounds are inclusive and what happens outside them.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Set the project playback rate') and implicitly distinguishes itself from its read counterpart get_play_rate. It does not explicitly mention the sibling or scope beyond 'project', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of resetting to 1.0, and no reference to the get_play_rate sibling for reading the current value before changing it.

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