Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by vecnode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

fx_get_param

Retrieve a normalized (0.0-1.0) value from a specific effect parameter on a track's FX.

Instructions

Get a normalized (0.0-1.0) parameter value from a track's FX.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "track_index": "<track_index>",
      "fx_index": "<fx_index>",
      "param_index": "<param_index>"
    },
    "name": "fx_get_param"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fx_indexYes
param_indexYes
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions normalization but omits details on side effects (should be read-only), error handling, or indexing conventions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence (12 words), which is concise but too brief, lacking necessary detail. It is front-loaded but under-informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description fails to explain indexing, return value structure (beyond normalization), or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool with three required integer parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no explanation for the three parameters (track_index, fx_index, param_index), leaving ambiguity about indexing (0-based vs 1-based) and allowed ranges.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('parameter value from a track's FX'), and the normalized range (0.0-1.0), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fx_set_param.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reading a parameter value but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fx_set_param or fx_list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools