Import audio or MIDI files onto a REAPER track by specifying the file path, target track, and optional start bar or beat.
Imports an audio or MIDI file onto a track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full path of an audio (wav, flac, mp3, aiff, ogg...) or MIDI file | |
| track | Yes | Track number (1 = top), track name, or "master" | |
| start_bar | No | Default: the edit cursor | |
| start_beat | No | Beat within the bar, 1-based (default 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It says only that a file is imported onto a track, without stating whether the track must already exist, whether the file is copied into the project/media pool, whether the operation is undoable, or what happens on conflict (e.g., existing item at that position).
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?
A single efficiently worded sentence with the action front-loaded. It is not padded, though its brevity comes at the cost of detail covered in other dimensions rather than wasting space.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot infer prerequisites (file existence, track existence), side effects on the project or media pool, or the response shape, and nothing in the structured fields compensates.
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 100%, so path, track, start_bar, and start_beat are already documented by the schema, including the 1-based track numbering, the "master" option, and the cursor default. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (imports) plus resource (audio or MIDI file) and destination (track), so an agent knows the core action. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as place_loop, load_sound, or build_sampled_instrument, which also bring audio into the project.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With siblings like place_loop, load_sound, find_samples, and analyze_audio available, the agent gets no signal about when importing a file is the right choice versus placing a loop or loading an existing sound.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.