REAPER MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses the critical 'Render the project' side effect (computationally expensive operation) and comprehensively details the return structure (seven specific frequency bands with exact Hz ranges). It lacks warnings about rendering time or prerequisites, but covers the essential behavioral traits.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first establishes the action and side effect, second details the return values with precise frequency ranges. Information is perfectly front-loaded and dense.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing exactly what would appear in an output schema (the seven bands, their Hz ranges, and dB RMS units). For a parameter-less analysis tool, this is complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters (empty input schema), which per instructions warrants a baseline score of 4. No parameter explanation is needed or provided, which is appropriate for this schema.

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 specific action ('Render the project and analyze frequency band levels') and distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools (analyze_dynamics, analyze_loudness, etc.) by specifying exact frequency band analysis with defined ranges.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the specific frequency ranges and 'RMS level in dB' detail make it clear this is for spectral/EQ analysis versus dynamics or stereo analysis. It implies usage context through the detailed return specification, though explicit 'when to use vs analyze_loudness' guidance is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.