reaper-mcp

by vecnode

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rust

Local

item_split

Split a media item on a track at a specific time, using the track index, item start position, and split point.

Instructions

Split the media item on a track that starts at item_start_sec, at split_at_sec.

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>",
      "item_start_sec": "<item_start_sec>",
      "split_at_sec": "<split_at_sec>"
    },
    "name": "item_split"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`track_index`	Yes
`split_at_sec`	Yes
`item_start_sec`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. 'Split' implies write operation but does not state whether original item is destroyed, if new items are created, or effects on undo history. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Could be expanded with important behavioral details without being overly verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the result of the split (e.g., returns success indicator or new item positions). Incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, and description only mentions parameter names without adding semantics. For example, 'item_start_sec' is described as 'starts at' but not defined precisely (e.g., the start time of the item on the track). Does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Split the media item on a track' with specific parameters (item_start_sec, split_at_sec). Distinguishes from siblings like item_glue_selected (glue) and item_move (move). However, 'item_start_sec' could be more precisely defined as the start position of the item on the timeline.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to split vs glue or move). No mention of prerequisites or when not to use.

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