Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by vecnode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

fx_set_param

Precisely control an FX parameter on any track by setting a normalized value from 0.0 to 1.0.

Instructions

Set a normalized (0.0-1.0) parameter value on 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>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "fx_set_param"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYes
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?

Without annotations, the description only mentions the normalized range (0.0-1.0). It does not disclose what happens on out-of-range values, whether it clamps, side effects like automation triggering, or error handling. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, achieving high conciseness. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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?

Given 4 required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks indexing details, expected behavior for invalid inputs, and confirmation of success. It is adequate for a very simple tool but misses important context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should add meaning to the 4 required parameters. It only implies 'parameter value' has a range but does not explain track_index, fx_index, or param_index indexing (e.g., 0-based). This adds little beyond the param names.

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 'Set' and the resource 'a normalized (0.0-1.0) parameter value on a track's FX', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like fx_get_param (get) and fx_set_enabled (set enabled state).

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It is purely declarative with no contextual advice.

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