Organize tracks in REAPER by setting a track as a folder parent or child using folder depth values: 0 for normal, 1 for parent, -1 for end of folder.
Set a track as a folder parent or child.
Args: folder_depth: 0=normal, 1=folder parent, -1=end of folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_index | Yes | ||
| folder_depth | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation declares destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful semantic detail by mapping folder_depth values to normal, folder parent, and end-of-folder states. However, it does not disclose potential side effects on track hierarchy or child tracks beyond the minimal mapping.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise parameter mapping. Every sentence is purposeful and there is no filler.
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 setter, the description conveys the main behavior and folder_depth semantics, but it omits any explanation of track_index and offers no broader context about track hierarchy behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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. It explains folder_depth with explicit value meanings, but it leaves track_index entirely undocumented, relying on the parameter name to carry its meaning.
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: setting a track as either a folder parent or child. This clearly identifies the operation and naturally distinguishes it from the many other set_track_* sibling tools.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus other track-structuring operations, nor are prerequisites or consequences mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.