Removes a specified FX plugin from a take in REAPER using track, item, take, and FX indices, allowing precise deletion of unwanted effects during mixing or editing.
Remove an FX plugin from a take.
Args:
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_index | Yes | ||
| item_index | Yes | ||
| take_index | 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 already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates and destroys. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the removal is undoable, whether indices shift for subsequent plugins after removal, or whether the take must be active. For a destructive operation this is thin even against the lower annotation-backed bar.
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 core sentence is tight and front-loaded, which is good. However, the trailing 'Args:' line with no content is dead weight and signals an incomplete definition, costing structure points.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the burden, and it does not: for a destructive four-index operation with zero schema descriptions and no return-value or side-effect information, an agent cannot confidently construct the call or predict the result.
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% and the description provides no parameter information at all – it ends at a dangling 'Args:' header with nothing after it. The four index parameters (track_index, item_index, take_index, fx_index) are not explained: their hierarchy, whether indices are zero-based, or whether take_index is relative to the item, all remain unstated.
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 (remove) and resource (FX plugin) with scope qualifier 'from a take', which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling track_fx_delete that operates at track level. It stops short of naming that sibling or making the distinction explicit, but an agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. does the take need to be the active take?), and no reference to alternatives such as track_fx_delete or take_fx_get_list for enumerating existing plugins. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.