Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
reaper-mcp

reaper-mcp

by vecnode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

reaper_status

Check REAPER installations, running processes, and socket bridge status to diagnose connection issues.

Instructions

Report REAPER installs found, running REAPER processes (with PIDs), and whether the reaper_bridge.lua socket bridge is reachable. Call this first when diagnosing connection issues.

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose safety traits. It explains what is reported but does not state that the tool is read-only or whether it can be called repeatedly without side effects. This is adequate for a status check but could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences: first enumerates the report contents, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description covers the key elements returned. It lacks details on format or structure, but for a diagnostic status tool, the information is sufficient for an agent to understand the output.

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, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output content (installs, processes, bridge status), going beyond the empty schema.

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 it reports REAPER installs, running processes with PIDs, and socket bridge reachability. This is a specific verb-resource combination, distinctly separated from sibling tools which are action-oriented (e.g., fx_add, transport_play).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Call this first when diagnosing connection issues,' providing a clear usage context. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is sufficient for this diagnostic tool.

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