Need to silence a track? Mute or unmute any REAPER track by specifying its index and mute state.
Set the mute state of a track.
Args: mute: True to mute, False to unmute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mute | 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 behavioral burden. It confirms this is a mutating toggle, but says nothing about idempotency, permission requirements, error behavior on an invalid track index, or return value.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the argument semantics. Minimal waste, though the 'Args:' block is boilerplate-style formatting rather than prose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits track_index meaning, error conditions, and any statement of effect on state beyond the obvious toggle.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the semantic of 'mute' (True mutes, False unmutes), which the bare boolean schema does not, but 'track_index' is left entirely unexplained (origin, ordering, validity) in both places.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Set the mute state of a track'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling set_item_mute (item rather than track) and from set_track_solo. It does not explicitly name siblings, so it stops 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?
No guidance on when to use this versus set_item_mute, set_track_solo, or track_fx_set_enabled-style toggles. No preconditions (track must exist, track must be valid index) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.