Set a REAPER track's mute state by specifying its index and a true/false flag, enabling precise control over which tracks are audible during mixing or playback.
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?
Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds nothing beyond the parameter explanation: no mention of side effects, whether muting is immediate or reversible, what happens on an invalid track_index, or how this interacts with undo. It does not contradict the annotation, but it is far from sufficient.
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 efficient and front-loaded: the purpose statement comes first, followed by a compact parameter doc. It earns its place with no fluff, though it is terse enough that the track_index omission is noticeable.
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 state-setter, the description is mostly adequate: the mute parameter semantics are clear and the tool's effect is obvious. The main gap is the undocumented track_index (indexing convention, range), which an agent needs when calling the tool correctly. The presence of destructiveHint=false partially covers the safety profile.
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 fully documents the 'mute' parameter ('True to mute, False to unmute'), which is helpful. However, 'track_index' is completely undocumented in the description—no indexing convention (0-based vs 1-based) or validity constraints—so compensation 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 mute state of a track.' This is clear and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_item_mute, but the track-vs-item resource distinction is readily apparent from the name and description.
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 such as set_item_mute or set_track_solo, and no prerequisite conditions are mentioned (e.g., valid track_index, track existing). The agent is given no contextual cues to select this over nearby siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.