Save selected tracks with their plugins, sends, settings, and items as a REAPER track template for reuse in any project.
Saves tracks (with their plugins, sends between them, settings and items) as a REAPER track template, to reuse in any project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | e.g. 'Vocal chain', 'Drum bus' (a/b makes a subfolder) | |
| tracks | Yes |
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. It does disclose substantive content scope (plugins, inter-track sends, settings, items are all saved), which is genuine behavioral value, but it omits overwrite behavior, where the template is stored, and any failure modes for a write operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler; the parenthetical efficiently enumerates the saved payload rather than wasting words.
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 description conveys what is saved but leaves open the target storage location, overwrite semantics, and the meaning of the ambiguously typed 'tracks' parameter. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 50%: 'name' is documented in the schema with an example, but 'tracks' (a string|integer array) has no description. The description mentions tracks only as the object being saved and never clarifies whether the array expects track names, indices, or handles, so it fails to close the coverage gap.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Saves') and resource ('tracks ... as a REAPER track template') and enumerates what is captured (plugins, sends, settings, items). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like apply_track_template and list_track_templates by the save-vs-apply distinction, though the description never explicitly names those counterparts.
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 phrase 'to reuse in any project' implies the use case (create a reusable preset from existing tracks), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as apply_track_template for the inverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.