reaper_set_track_volumeAdjust a REAPER track's volume in decibels. Provide track index and dB value (0 dB = unity, negative = quieter) to control loudness.
Set a track's volume in decibels (0 dB = unity, negative = quieter).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| db | Yes | ||
| index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the meaning of the db parameter (0 dB = unity, negative = quieter), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether there are limits on the value (e.g., maximum positive dB), whether changes are immediate or require render, or what happens on invalid input. The description adds some value but lacks depth on side effects and constraints.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and then clarifies the unit semantics. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is presented efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple setter tool.
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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and schema coverage is 0%, the description must be self-sufficient. It explains the db parameter but leaves the index parameter undefined, which is a critical piece of information for calling the tool correctly. Additionally, it does not mention any constraints or behavioral outcomes, making the description incomplete for an agent to use it reliably.
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 compensate. It explains the 'db' parameter thoroughly with units and meaning, but the 'index' parameter is not mentioned at all. The description does not clarify whether the index is zero-based or one-based, or what it refers to (track number in the project). With one of two parameters undocumented, the description only partially fulfills the semantic burden.
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 verb 'Set', the resource 'a track's volume', and the unit 'decibels' with an explicit definition of 0 dB as unity and negative as quieter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_track_name, set_track_mute, or set_track_solo, which target different track properties. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from the action itself, but there is no statement like 'use this to adjust volume' or 'if you need to set pan, use another tool'. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not thorough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.