Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by vecnode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

fx_set_enabled

Enable or disable a specific FX on a REAPER track by providing its index and the track index.

Instructions

Bypass (False) or enable (True) an FX on a track.

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>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>"
    },
    "name": "fx_set_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYes
fx_indexYes
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. For example, it doesn't mention what happens if the FX index is invalid or if the track doesn't exist.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and lacks structure. While it is concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it borderline under-specified.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters with zero schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide essential context like indexing conventions, error behavior, or return values.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning for the 'enabled' parameter by specifying 'Bypass (False) or enable (True).' The other two parameters (track_index, fx_index) are not explained beyond their names, leaving ambiguity about indexing (0-based vs 1-based).

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 specifies the action: 'Bypass (False) or enable (True) an FX on a track.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like fx_add or fx_remove.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely states the action without context.

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