Create an auxiliary send from a source track to a destination track in REAPER, with optional volume adjustment. Streamline routing for mixing and effects processing.
Create an aux send from one track to another.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| volume_db | No | ||
| dest_track_index | Yes | ||
| source_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 provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it overwrites existing sends, if it requires specific track types, or what happens to the routing). The mutation effect is implied but not detailed.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous content. While concise, it sacrifices detail that could aid an agent. It is efficiently structured but overly minimal.
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?
Given the tool involves creating a routing connection between tracks, the description lacks details on routing implications, error conditions (e.g., invalid indices), and the return value. It is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.
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%, yet the description only mentions 'from one track to another' without explaining the parameters (source_track_index, dest_track_index, volume_db). The meaning of indices, default volume, and optional nature of volume_db are not clarified.
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 verb 'create' and the resource 'aux send', with source and destination tracks specified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_bus' or 'create_track'. However, 'aux send' might be slightly ambiguous without domain knowledge.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_send_volume' or 'remove_send'. Missing context on prerequisites, such as whether tracks must already exist or have specific routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.