Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by vecnode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

item_render_in_place_selected

Render selected items in place by applying FX, pitch, and rate changes destructively to create a new item.

Instructions

Render selected items in place (applies FX/pitch/rate destructively to new item).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "item_render_in_place_selected"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the operation is destructive ('applies FX/pitch/rate destructively'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what happens to the original items, whether rendering creates a new item, or any permissions needed. With no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 that front-loads the key action and critical traits (destructive, in place). No extraneous content.

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?

While the tool is simple (0 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks clarity on whether the selected items are replaced or a new item is created. The phrase 'to new item' is ambiguous. For a destructive operation, more precision would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Given 0 parameters, the baseline is 4.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Render selected items in place') and specifies the application of FX/pitch/rate destructively, distinguishing it from other item manipulation tools like item_split or item_glue_selected. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or context such as when glueing or splitting would be more appropriate.

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