Modify a REAPER track's name, fader, pan, mute, solo, color, or selection to manage mixing and track organization.
Changes a track's name, fader, pan, mute, solo, color or selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pan | No | -1 = hard left, 0 = center, 1 = hard right | |
| mute | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| solo | No | ||
| color | No | #RRGGBB | |
| track | Yes | Track number (1 = top), track name, or "master" | |
| selected | No | ||
| volume_db | No | Fader level in dB (0 = unity) |
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 for a mutation tool. It does not disclose that properties are updated partially (only the supplied ones change), how a property is reset, whether the operation is undoable, or what side effects (e.g., solo/mute interactions) occur.
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 no filler, and the verb+resource lead the sentence. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail covered in other dimensions.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: partial-update behavior, reset conventions, and mutation effects are all unaddressed. It is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently.
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%, and the description only restates property names without adding meaning; notably it says 'fader' while the parameter is 'volume_db', leaving the mapping implicit. It does not explain partial-update semantics or null handling, so it does not compensate for the undocumented half of the 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?
States a specific verb ('changes') and resource ('a track's ... properties') and enumerates exactly which properties are settable (name, fader, pan, mute, solo, color, selection). It is unambiguous what the tool operates on, though it offers no differentiation from siblings like update_sound or edit_item that also mutate objects.
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 this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about when not to use it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.