Render a REAPER project and measure RMS levels across seven frequency bands to identify balance issues before mixing or mastering.
Render the project and analyze frequency band levels. Returns RMS level in dB for seven bands: sub_bass (20–60Hz), bass (60–250Hz), low_mids (250–500Hz), mids (500–2kHz), high_mids (2–4kHz), presence (4–8kHz), brilliance (8–20kHz).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful side effect — the project is rendered — and specifies the return payload (RMS dB per band), but it never says whether the render is persisted to disk, how long it takes, or whether it disturbs project state. That leaves the expensive/possibly-side-effecting part under-described.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact band table that is information-dense with no filler. Every clause contributes either the operation or the return semantics.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what comes back (seven named bands with frequency ranges and dB units). The remaining gap is the un-annotated nature of the render step — whether it writes files or blocks — which a no-annotation tool should ideally address.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The band definitions describe output semantics rather than inputs, which is a bonus rather than a parameter explanation.
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+resource ('Render the project and analyze frequency band levels') and enumerates the seven bands with their Hz ranges, which intrinsically separates it from siblings like analyze_loudness, analyze_dynamics, and analyze_stereo_field. An agent can tell exactly what this produces without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Render the project' — the agent can infer this is a post-render/mix-inspection tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no guidance on choosing it over analyze_loudness or detect_clipping, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. transport stopped, project loaded).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.