Set a REAPER track's color using RGB values (0-255) to visually organize your mix. Specify track index and red, green, blue components.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation ('Set') but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, what happens to existing color settings, or error behavior for an invalid track_index. This is a significant gap 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then briefly lists the RGB parameters. There is no wasted text; each sentence earns its place.
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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the description should be more complete. It omits the required track_index parameter and provides no behavioral details such as return value, side effects, or error handling.
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 documents the r, g, and b parameters with ranges (0-255), which is helpful. However, the required track_index parameter is not mentioned or explained anywhere, leaving one of four parameters without semantic 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: 'Set the color of a track.' It distinguishes itself from sibling setters like set_track_name and set_track_volume by naming color. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings or mention the track_index parameter, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage context is implied by the operation name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.