Skip to main content
Glama
wretcher207

Reaper Daemon

by wretcher207
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

capture_track_audio

Render a REAPER track's audio capture to a WAV file and return its evidence scope, enabling verification of mix moves with per-track or full-mix audio.

Instructions

Render a track capture to WAV and return its evidence scope. Only isolated_track with isolation_verified=true is per-track audio; item-based tracks can report a full_mix fallback. Gated: needs allow_audio_writes=true (or the legacy allow_risk_level_3 fallback) in bridge/bridge_config.json (python3 setup/install.py --allow-audio-writes writes it; capture does NOT need save_project or preference rights) AND the change applied by the reload_bridge command, or a REAPER relaunch — the flag is read once per bridge load. Synchronous — blocks the bridge for the render duration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trackNoExact track name (case-insensitive); "master" targets the master track. Used when no GUID is given; errors if two tracks share the name.
output_fileNoOptional; defaults to a unique temp path.
start_secondsNo
track_containsNoCase-insensitive substring; used only when no GUID or exact name is given. Errors if it matches more than one track.
duration_secondsNoDefault 30, max 600. Starts at the edit cursor (or active time selection).
target_track_guidNoStable REAPER track GUID; preferred when available. Wins over every other track selector.
use_selected_trackNoTarget the first selected track; ignored when any other track selector is given. Errors if nothing is selected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv3.21.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / target_track_guid / description
      Previous value: -"Stable REAPER track GUID; preferred when available."New value: +"Stable REAPER track GUID; preferred when available. Wins over every other track selector."
    • changedInput schema / properties / track / description
      Previous value: -"Exact track name (case-insensitive)."New value: +"Exact track name (case-insensitive); \"master\" targets the master track. Used when no GUID is given; errors if two tracks share the name."
    • changedInput schema / properties / track_contains / description
      Previous value: -"Case-insensitive substring; errors if it matches more than one track."New value: +"Case-insensitive substring; used only when no GUID or exact name is given. Errors if it matches more than one track."
    • changedInput schema / properties / use_selected_track / description
      Previous value: -"Target the currently selected track instead of naming one."New value: +"Target the first selected track; ignored when any other track selector is given. Errors if nothing is selected."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full behavioral burden and does excellently: it discloses synchronous blocking, the read-once flag behavior, the full_mix fallback, and the rights NOT needed (save_project or preference rights. This is far beyond a bare action statement and adds significant behavioral context.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose. The gating sentence is long and contains many parentheticals, making it somewhat hard to parse, but every sentence earns its place by carrying essential prerequisites or behavioral caveats. It could be better structured as bullets, but it is not padded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—gating, fallback behavior, synchronous blocking, and no output schema—the description covers most critical operational facts. The main gap is the shape/format of the 'evidence scope' return value, but the description already provides substantial context despite no output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. It adds no syntax or format guidance for start_seconds, duration_seconds, or track selectors.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a track capture to WAV and return its evidence scope.' This clearly states the tool's action and output. The isolation_verified nuance further distinguishes it from generic audio/snapshot tools in the sibling list.

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 gives concrete usage context: it only delivers true per-track audio when isolation_verified=true, and item-based tracks may degrade to a full_mix fallback. It also states explicit gating prerequisites and the reload/relaunch requirement, which tells an agent when the tool is callable. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools