Set the automation mode for a track using values 0-4 (trim/read, read, touch, write, latch). Controls how REAPER records and plays back track parameter changes.
Set the automation mode for a track.
Args: mode: 0=trim/read, 1=read, 2=touch, 3=write, 4=latch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | ||
| 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says this is a setting operation and lists mode values, but does not explain side effects, required track state (e.g., armed), reversibility, or permissions. This is minimal behavioral context for a mutation tool.
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 concise and front-loads the core action in one sentence, followed by a compact parameter list. There is no wasted text, though the 'Args' formatting is raw and could be slightly tighter.
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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to call the tool correctly (mode values and the obvious track_index). However, it omits when to use the tool and what automation mode changes actually do, leaving contextual gaps that annotations would normally fill.
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 fully documents the 'mode' parameter with an enum mapping (0=trim/read, 1=read, 2=touch, 3=write, 4=latch), which is very helpful. However, the 'track_index' parameter is left undocumented, so coverage is only partial.
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: 'Set the automation mode for a track.' This is clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no sibling tool overlaps with this automation-mode operation, so confusion is unlikely.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It only lists parameter values, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.