Retrieve the value, minimum, and maximum of a specific parameter from an FX plugin on a take in REAPER.
Get a parameter value on a take's FX plugin.
Args:
Returns: Object with 'value', 'min', and 'max' for the parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_index | Yes | ||
| item_index | Yes | ||
| take_index | Yes | ||
| param_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 declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the return object shape ('value', 'min', 'max'), which is useful because there is no output schema. It does not mention permissions, failure modes, or index bounds.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but contains an empty 'Args:' header that adds no value. The Returns sentence earns its place by documenting the output shape.
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 5-param getter with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description supplies only the return shape. It omits all parameter semantics and usage context, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
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?
Five required integer parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and the description's 'Args:' section is empty. No parameter meaning, format, or indexing convention is provided, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 ('Get') and resource ('parameter value on a take's FX plugin'), clearly distinguishing from take_fx_set_param and track_fx_get_param. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope beyond the resource.
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, and no alternative named. The only implied usage is from the verb 'Get' and the presence of take_fx_set_param as a sibling; otherwise the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.