reaper-mcp

by vecnode

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rust

Local

track_add

Insert a new track into the REAPER project, optionally specifying its position and name.

Instructions

Insert a new track, optionally at a specific 0-based index (default: end of track list) and with a given name.

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": "track_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`index`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies index is 0-based and default is end of list, but does not mention what happens if index is invalid, side effects, or return values. This leaves some ambiguity.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with key info. Excellent conciseness.

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?

For a simple insert tool without output schema, the description covers core functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., out-of-bounds index) and return value, which would enhance 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds vital meaning: index is 0-based, default is end of list, name is optional. This compensates well for missing schema descriptions.

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 action 'Insert' on 'new track', and the optional parameters (index, name) are explained. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like track_remove and track_rename.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool (insert a track) but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusions are given, but context is clear.

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