Arm the transport and start recording audio or MIDI in REAPER.
Arm and start recording.
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": "transport_record"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it stops playback, requires a track to be armed, or prompts for file save). This minimal disclosure leaves an agent uninformed about important behaviors for a destructive action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (four words), avoiding any superfluous text. However, it could be slightly more structured or expanded to include a brief note on usage context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of prerequisites, state before calling, or potential effects on playback, which would make it more complete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema, though it does not need to elaborate on parameters. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Arm and start recording' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like transport_play (play without recording) and transport_stop. It uses specific verbs (arm, start) and a specific resource (recording), which is aligned with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and context of sibling transport tools, but there is no mention of recording prerequisites, arm state requirements, or that it should be used instead of transport_play for recording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.