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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify the return format (array structure, send properties), error conditions (invalid track_index), or whether this includes inactive/bypassed sends.

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 five words with the action front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting critical contextual details that would help an agent understand the domain-specific concept of 'sends' in audio production.

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 zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what constitutes a 'send' object, what fields are returned, or how to interpret the results—information essential for an agent to utilize the returned data effectively.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. The phrase 'from a track' implicitly maps to the track_index parameter but provides no semantics about valid ranges (0-indexed vs 1-indexed), data type constraints, or whether the track must contain existing sends.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sends') with clear scope ('from a track'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_send' and 'remove_send' through the 'list' action, though it assumes familiarity with DAW terminology without defining what a 'send' is.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., track must exist), or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and parameter requirement.

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