REAPER MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but fails to specify error handling (what happens if track_index is invalid?), return format, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not confirmed). 'Items' is mentioned without clarification (audio items? MIDI items?).

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 at 9 words in a single sentence. Information is front-loaded with the action verb. However, given the lack of schema documentation and output schema, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should outline return value structure or at least enumerate what 'detailed information' includes beyond FX and items. For a tool with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description provides insufficient context 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?

Schema coverage is 0% with no description field for track_index. The description fails to compensate by not explaining critical semantics: whether indexing is 0-based or 1-based, valid range constraints, or the consequence of invalid input for this required parameter.

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 action ('Get detailed information'), resource ('track'), and specific scope ('including FX and items'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_tracks' by requiring a specific track_index and from 'get_fx_parameters' by covering broader track data, though explicit differentiation is absent.

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 provided on when to use this versus 'list_tracks', 'get_fx_parameters', or 'get_project_info'. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., track must exist) and no error conditions described despite the required track_index parameter.

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