Skip to main content
Glama
wretcher207

Reaper Daemon

by wretcher207
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

save_project_as

Save the current REAPER project to a new .rpp file, or export selected tracks as a media-free .RTrackTemplate. Refuses to overwrite existing files.

Instructions

Save to a NEW absolute .rpp path, or export explicitly named tracks as a media-free .RTrackTemplate. Existing files are refused. Requires project save gate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
trackNoExact track name (case-insensitive); "master" targets the master track. Used when no GUID is given; errors if two tracks share the name.
dry_runNoPreview: return what would run without changing the project.
fx_guidNoStable FX GUID; wins over fx_index and fx_name_contains.
fx_indexNo0-based position in the chain; requires fx_scope "track" or "input". Used when no fx_guid is given.
fx_scopeNoWhich chain to search: "track" (normal FX), "input" (record-input FX) or "all" (default for GUID and name searches).
templateNo
track_guidsNo
track_containsNoCase-insensitive substring; used only when no GUID or exact name is given. Errors if it matches more than one track.
fx_name_containsNoCase-insensitive FX name substring; used only when neither fx_guid nor fx_index is given. Errors if it matches more than one FX.
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. Changed9 schema fields changedv3.21.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fx_guid / description
      Added value: +"Stable FX GUID; wins over fx_index and fx_name_contains."
    • addedInput schema / properties / fx_index / description
      Added value: +"0-based position in the chain; requires fx_scope \"track\" or \"input\". Used when no fx_guid is given."
    • addedInput schema / properties / fx_name_contains / description
      Added value: +"Case-insensitive FX name substring; used only when neither fx_guid nor fx_index is given. Errors if it matches more than one FX."
    • addedInput schema / properties / fx_scope / description
      Added value: +"Which chain to search: \"track\" (normal FX), \"input\" (record-input FX) or \"all\" (default for GUID and name searches)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / fx_scope / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "all",
+  "track",
+  "input"
+]
    • 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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral constraints: existing files are refused, the export is media-free, and a project save gate is required. However, it does not cover side effects, failure modes, return behavior, or what the save gate entails, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the two main modes and then immediately stating the key constraint about existing files. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 12-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core constraints but is not fully complete. It omits the meaning of the save gate, what dry_run returns, how template selection interacts with track selectors, and overall expected behavior in edge cases. The rich schema descriptions compensate somewhat, but the global workflow is still underspecified.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds a high-level distinction between .rpp and .RTrackTemplate modes, but it does not explain the undocumented parameters (template, track_guids, path) or clarify how they relate to the two modes beyond what the schema already says.

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 two concrete operations: saving to a new absolute .rpp path and exporting explicitly named tracks as a media-free .RTrackTemplate. It further distinguishes itself by noting that existing files are refused, making the tool's core purpose and scope unambiguous relative to sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool vs alternative siblings, and does not name or contrast any alternatives. While it mentions a prerequisite (project save gate) and the two modes, it leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context for invoking the tool.

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