Imports audio files onto a specified REAPER track at a chosen position in seconds, supporting formats like WAV, AIFF, MP3, FLAC, and OGG.
Import an audio file onto a track at the given position (seconds). Supports all formats REAPER can read: wav, aiff, mp3, flac, ogg, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | No | ||
| file_path | 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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the import overwrites existing media, what happens on an invalid track_index, whether paths must be absolute, or what the call returns. The format-support note ('wav, aiff, mp3, flac, ogg, etc.') is the only added behavioral value.
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 and immediately followed by the useful format-compatibility note. Nothing is padded, though the position unit could have been folded more tightly into the first clause.
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?
This is a project-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. An agent is left not knowing what the call returns (e.g., a new item reference needed for later edit_audio_item calls) or what side effects occur, which is materially incomplete for a write operation.
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 adds meaning for one parameter: position is 'in seconds'. file_path (absolute vs relative, extension handling) and track_index (zero- or one-based, must track exist) remain fully 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 ('Import an audio file onto a track at the given position') with the unit of position clarified. An agent can distinguish it from create_midi_item or edit_audio_item by the audio-file framing, though no sibling is named 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 description never says when to reach for this versus create_midi_item, edit_audio_item, or insert_track_template, nor does it state prerequisites such as the track needing to exist or the file needing to be on disk. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.