Rename any track in REAPER by specifying its index and a new name. Use it to keep your mix organized with clear, custom track labels.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a mutation ('set') but omits any behavioral context: whether it requires track selection, whether the change is undoable, how to identify the track, or what happens on invalid index. Significant gaps for a write operation.
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?
Extremely concise, only two sentences. Well front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is minimal but not wasteful.
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 sparse. It should explain how track_index is used and any prerequisites, but provides nothing beyond the basic purpose.
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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description names 'name' but provides no semantics for 'track_index' (e.g., 0-based vs 1-based, what it refers to). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Set the name of a track.' Distinguishes itself from sibling set_track_* tools by stating the specific attribute (name) being modified, though it does not explicitly reference siblings.
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 (e.g., get_track to verify, or other set_track_* tools). The description provides only what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.