REAPER MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies mutation, it fails to disclose whether this is destructive (permanent), reversible, has immediate audio engine effects, or throws errors if the index is invalid. Critical safety context for a deletion operation is absent.

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, zero redundancy, and appropriate density for the complexity level.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive operation with zero schema descriptions and no output schema. Missing: error behavior, validation requirements, side effects on audio routing, and guidance on index validity. The description states the bare minimum action without operational context.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It partially succeeds by referencing 'index' (mapping to send_index) and implying track context (source_track_index), but omits critical details like zero-based vs one-based indexing, valid ranges, or how to obtain these indices (e.g., via list_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 clearly states the action (Remove), resource (send), and mechanism (by index). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_fx' or 'create_send' through specific resource naming, though it assumes familiarity with DAW terminology without clarifying 'send' means audio routing.

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 alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., verifying the send exists), or workflow context (e.g., 'use list_sends to find valid indices before removing'). The agent receives no instruction on error handling or preconditions.

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