Create, adjust, or remove an audio send between tracks in REAPER, such as routing vocals to a reverb bus or managing signal flow.
Creates or adjusts a send (e.g. vocals to a reverb bus), or removes it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | No | ||
| mode | No | ||
| mute | No | ||
| remove | No | ||
| source | Yes | Track number (1 = top), track name, or "master" | |
| volume_db | No | ||
| destination | Yes | Track number (1 = top), track name, or "master" |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool can create, adjust, or remove a send, but does not explain permissions, reversibility, what happens when a send does not exist, how defaults are applied, or any side effects of removal.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity contributes to the overall under-specification rather than being a structural flaw.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It gives a useful example but omits routing semantics, parameter behavior, usage guidance, and the distinction from closely related sibling tools.
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 only 29%, with just source and destination documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters and does not clarify pan, mode, mute, remove, or volume_db, so it adds no semantic value for five undocumented parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource: creates, adjusts, or removes a send, with a concrete example (vocals to a reverb bus). It is clear what operation is performed, but it does not differentiate this tool from sibling routing tools such as set_master_send or create_bus.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use set_send versus alternatives like set_master_send, create_bus, or get_routing. The description also omits preconditions or context for choosing create, adjust, or remove behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.