Skip to main content
Glama

rename_track

Rename any track in REAPER by providing its index and a new name, keeping your project organized.

Instructions

Rename a track.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that renames a track by index. Fetches the project, accesses the track by index, sets its name, and returns success/failure.
    @mcp.tool()
    def rename_track(track_index: int, name: str) -> dict:
        """Rename a track."""
        try:
            project = get_project()
            track = project.tracks[track_index]
            track.name = name
            return {"success": True, "track_index": track_index, "name": track.name}
        except Exception as e:
            return {"success": False, "error": str(e)}
  • Input schema is defined via function signature: expects track_index (int) and name (str). Returns dict.
    def rename_track(track_index: int, name: str) -> dict:
  • Registered as an MCP tool via the @mcp.tool() decorator inside register_tools(mcp). The module-level registration is triggered from server.py line 21: _reg_track(mcp).
    @mcp.tool()
    def rename_track(track_index: int, name: str) -> dict:
        """Rename a track."""
        try:
            project = get_project()
            track = project.tracks[track_index]
            track.name = name
            return {"success": True, "track_index": track_index, "name": track.name}
        except Exception as e:
            return {"success": False, "error": str(e)}
  • Module-level registration call that passes the mcp instance to register_tools, which decorates rename_track with @mcp.tool().
    _reg_track(mcp)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. Only states 'rename a track' without disclosing that this is a mutating operation, whether it is reversible, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise but overly terse; lacks essential details. Despite brevity, it is not appropriately sized as it sacrifices completeness for minimalism.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. Does not cover return value, success/failure conditions, or behavior when track_index is out of range. Agent lacks context to use tool reliably.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% with 2 parameters (track_index, name) having no descriptions. Description adds no meaning beyond schema; does not clarify index base (0 or 1), name format restrictions, or validation. Agent must guess parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'rename' and resource 'track', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_track' or 'create_track'. However, it lacks specificity on what renaming entails (e.g., does it also update internal references?).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, track_index must be valid) or consequences. Agent has to infer usage from name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bonfire-audio/reaper-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server