reaper-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

reaper_info

Retrieves REAPER's version, resource path, current project path, track count, and play state for monitoring project details.

Instructions

Get REAPER version, resource path, current project path, track count, and play state.

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": "reaper_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description lists the five pieces of information returned, providing clear behavioral scope. No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention potential prerequisites like an active REAPER connection or that it is a read-only operation, but for a simple info tool this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the verb and outputs. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description lists the returned items clearly. It does not specify data types or structure, but for the listed items the meaning is clear. The context is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 starts with the verb 'Get' and lists the specific information items: REAPER version, resource path, current project path, track count, and play state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like adding, removing, or modifying, or query more specific data like track_list or transport_get_state.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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 vs. alternatives. The description implies it is for getting overall REAPER status, but does not mention that for detailed transport state one should use transport_get_state or for track details use track_list.

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