Adds a pan automation point to a REAPER track and displays its pan envelope when required. Specify track index, timeline position, and pan value from -1.0 left to 1.0 right.
Add a pan automation point on a track, showing its pan envelope if needed. pan: -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | Yes | ||
| position | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one side effect (the pan envelope becomes visible), but says nothing about whether existing automation points at the same position are overwritten, what a failed call returns, or what 'if needed' actually means. For an unannotated mutation tool this leaves the behavior largely opaque.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the parameter range immediately following. No filler; the only weakness is the telegraphic 'showing its pan envelope if needed' clause, which reads as an afterthought.
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?
A 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs far more: units for position, indexing convention for track_index, and overwrite semantics. The description covers the pan domain only, leaving the agent to guess on two of three inputs.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: the pan range (-1.0 full left to 1.0 full right) is genuinely useful. Position (beats? seconds? ticks?) and track_index (0- vs 1-based) remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a pan automation point on a track.' This is distinguishable from set_track_pan (static pan) and from add_volume_automation by the resource qualifier, though the description never names either sibling explicitly.
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?
The only usage-adjacent phrase is 'showing its pan envelope if needed,' which hints at a side effect rather than telling the agent when to prefer this over set_track_pan or add_volume_automation. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.