Set the pan balance of any track in REAPER with a value from -1.0 (full left) to 1.0 (full right), where 0.0 is center.
Set track pan. -1.0 = full left, 0.0 = center, 1.0 = full right.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pan value range but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting automation) or whether the track must exist.
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 a clear value mapping. Every word is necessary and focused, achieving maximal conciseness.
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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers the pan parameter and purpose but could note the validity of track_index.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the pan parameter's range but ignores track_index. This adds partial value beyond the schema.
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 tool sets track pan, a specific resource. It defines the range of pan values (-1.0 to 1.0), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_track_mute.
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 implies usage for setting static pan but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like add_pan_automation. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.