Render a REAPER project to measure stereo width and mono compatibility, returning mid/side balance, width ratio, and L/R correlation for spotting phase issues.
Render the project and analyze stereo width and mono compatibility. Returns mid/side balance, stereo width ratio, and L/R correlation. Correlation near 1 = mono-like, near 0 = wide stereo, negative = phase issues.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important side effect that it renders the project first (a non-trivial, potentially slow operation). However it omits whether rendering is offline vs realtime, whether output files are created, and whether it disturbs playback state — material for an unannotated mutating/render tool.
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?
Three short sentences: action first, then return values, then interpretation guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics and explains how to read the correlation value, which is the key interpretive detail. It falls short only on operational context, such as render duration or side effects, for an annotation-free tool.
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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly implies the whole project is the implicit input.
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 pair ('analyze stereo width and mono compatibility') and immediately names the exact measurements returned. It is unambiguously separable from sibling analysis tools like analyze_loudness, analyze_dynamics, and analyze_frequency_spectrum.
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 implied by the concept of mono compatibility checking, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never tells the agent to prefer this over render_stems or render_project, nor when a stereo-field check is warranted versus other analyses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.