reaper-mcp

by vecnode

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Rust

Local

track_set_volume_db

Adjust a track's volume fader to a specific dB level, with 0 representing unity gain.

Instructions

Set a track's volume fader in dB (0 = unity gain).

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>",
      "db": "<db>"
    },
    "name": "track_set_volume_db"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`db`	Yes
`track_index`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior for invalid track_index or out-of-range db, or whether the operation is reversible. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and context. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple setter tool, the description covers the basic purpose but omits details like acceptable dB range, expected return value (since no output schema), and behavior on invalid inputs. It is minimally complete but leaves room for ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'db' is in decibels with unity at 0, but does not describe 'track_index' (e.g., 0-based or 1-based, valid range). No parameter details are added beyond what the name implies.

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 specifies the verb 'Set', the resource 'track's volume fader', and the unit 'dB' with a clarifying note on unity gain (0 dB). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like track_set_pan or track_set_mute.

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?

The usage is implied: adjust volume. However, there are no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use track_set_pan instead). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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