Renders a REAPER project to identify digital clipping at or above 0 dBFS and reports clipped sample count, peak level in dB, and clipping status.
Render the project and detect digital clipping (samples at or above 0 dBFS). Returns clipped sample count, peak level in dB, and whether clipping was found.
| 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 does well: it explains that the tool renders the project, defines clipping precisely, and discloses the returned values (clipped sample count, peak level in dB, and a boolean result). It does not mention rendering cost, side effects, or prerequisites, but the core behavior is clear.
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 tightly written sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then defining the return values. Every sentence earns its place.
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 is complete: it explains what is done, the exact clipping threshold, and what information is returned. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly without needing further details.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies that no parameters are needed and focuses on the operation and return values instead.
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 states a specific action and resource: it renders the project and detects digital clipping, with a precise threshold (samples at or above 0 dBFS). It is distinguishable from general render or analysis tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like render_project or analyze_loudness.
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: this tool is for checking clipping after rendering. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as render_project or analyze_loudness, leaving the agent to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.