Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by vecnode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

fx_list

List all FX on a track by index, retrieving their name and enabled state to audit or manage the FX chain.

Instructions

List all FX on a track's FX chain with their index, name, and enabled state.

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>"
    },
    "name": "fx_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or limitations beyond what is obvious.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence of 15 words, front-loading the action. Every word is earned with no waste.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema, the description explains what is returned (index, name, enabled state). However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., only FX from the selected track) or error conditions. It is adequate but not exemplary.

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% (no descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add any meaning to the single parameter 'track_index', such as whether it is 0-indexed or 1-indexed, nor does it explain its purpose beyond the name.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'FX on a track's FX chain', and specifies the returned attributes (index, name, enabled state). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fx_add, fx_remove, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fx_get_param or fx_set_enabled. The description implies usage for listing FX, but does not provide context on when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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