reaper-reapy-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_region_list

Retrieve all regions in a REAPER project, including index, start, and end positions, to review and manage project structure.

Instructions

Get a list of all regions in the project.

Returns: Dict containing status and a list of regions, each with: - index: region index - start: region start position - end: region end position

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": "get_region_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (Dict with status and a list of regions containing index, start, end), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention edge cases like empty lists or error handling, but for a simple getter this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted return format. Every line earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, simple read-only operation with an existing output schema and a clear return format description, this is complete. No additional context about state changes or prerequisites is needed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters (schema is empty), so baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not need to compensate for missing parameter semantics, as there are none to document.

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 'Get a list of all regions in the project' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like create_region/delete_region. It is unambiguous and scoped correctly.

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?

Usage is implied by the read-only nature and function name, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_track_list or other list/query tools. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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