Rename a specific track in REAPER by specifying its index and the new name to keep your session organized.
Set the name of a track.
Args: name: New name for the track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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 include destructiveHint=false, which indicates the operation is not destructive. The description states the mutation ('Set') but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as whether the change is undoable, any side effects on related data, or error conditions. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries a burden it does not fully meet, though the simple nature of a rename operation mitigates the gap.
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 brief and to the point, with no redundant wording. It front-loads the purpose. However, it is too sparse to be fully effective, but that is more an issue of completeness than conciseness. It earns a 4 for efficient wording.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of the track_index parameter, no output schema is provided, and it does not mention constraints like whether duplicate names are allowed or if the name must be unique. The absence of these details makes the tool less reliable for an agent to use correctly.
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 explain all parameters. It documents only 'name' as 'New name for the track', but entirely omits the critical parameter 'track_index'. The agent is left without any explanation of what track_index refers to (e.g., zero-based index, which track), making correct invocation difficult.
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 clearly states the action ('Set the name of a track') with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools that set other track properties (e.g., set_track_volume, set_track_color). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the operation is simple, the description provides no contextual routing for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.