Assign a custom RGB color to any track in REAPER by providing red, green, and blue values. Organize your session visually by color-coding tracks for faster navigation.
Set the color of a track.
Args: r: Red component (0-255). g: Green component (0-255). b: Blue component (0-255).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | Yes | ||
| g | Yes | ||
| r | 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?
Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, which is minimal. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation, such as whether the color change is immediately visible, whether it affects the track's appearance in the arrange view, or whether it requires a valid track index. No contradiction with annotations, but the description carries the burden and doesn't add much.
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-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter list is clear and compact. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured with a note about track_index.
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 setter, the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks any mention of track_index semantics, error conditions, or return value. With no output schema and minimal annotations, an agent might not know how to handle invalid track indices or whether the operation is reversible. The RGB range is documented, which is good, but the overall context is thin.
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 does explain r, g, b as RGB components with 0-255 ranges, which is helpful. However, it does not explain track_index at all, and the schema only says it's an integer. The description adds meaning for 3 of 4 parameters, but the most important one (which track) is left to the schema.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Set the color of a track.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from other track-related setters like set_track_name, set_track_volume, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the track_index parameter in the description text, though the schema requires it.
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 tool versus alternatives. There are no sibling tools that set track color, so the lack of alternatives is not a major issue, but there is no context about prerequisites (e.g., track must exist) or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.