reaper-reapy-mcp

by wegitor

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

delete_marker

Removes a marker from a REAPER project by index. Clean up marker lists and keep the timeline organized.

Instructions

Delete a marker from the project.

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": {
      "marker_index": "<marker_index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_marker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`marker_index`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the tool name and provides no context on consequences (e.g., index shifting), error behavior, or irreversibility. The word 'Delete' implies mutation but adds no transparency beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it is under-specified in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple delete operation, the description is too thin. It does not clarify the meaning or range of marker_index, nor any side effects. An output schema exists, but this alone does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance and behavioral context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one required parameter (marker_index) with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter, leaving ambiguity about whether indexing is zero-based or one-based and which marker is targeted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a marker from the project') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_region by the resource type, but does not explicitly contrast with create_marker or other marker-related tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, index validity, or compare with related tools like delete_region. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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