Check if REAPER is recording or playing, locate the playhead, and get stop time. Also waits when REAPER asks which files to keep after recording.
Whether REAPER is recording or playing, where the playhead is, and when it'll stop. If recording just stopped and REAPER is asking the user which files to keep, this waits for them to answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, and the description adds a genuinely important behavioral trait beyond it: the call can block and wait for the user to answer a file-keep dialog. That blocking behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to avoid a perceived hang. It doesn't mention timeouts or what is returned while waiting, keeping it out of the top band.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary state query before the conditional blocking caveat. No filler, though the conditional sentence runs slightly long and could be tightened.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates what the agent gets back (recording vs playing, playhead position, stop time) and warns about the file-keep prompt. Return format and value units remain unstated, but for a zero-parameter status query this is nearly complete.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for parameterless tools is 4. The schema is trivially complete and the description does not need to compensate.
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 concrete subject and the three things it reports (record/play state, playhead position, stop time), which is far more specific than a tautology. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from, so it falls short of the top band.
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 second sentence implies a usage situation (just after recording stops, while REAPER prompts for file keeps), which is useful implied context. However, it never says when to prefer this over sibling tools such as transport or record, so guidance remains inferential.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.