Restore recent undone changes in a REAPER project by redoing the last step or multiple steps in one call. Set the number of actions to reapply, from 1 to 100.
Redo the last undone step, or the last several in one call.
Args: steps: How many steps to redo, 1-100 (default 1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| steps | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.2Input schema / properties / stepsAdded value: +{
+ "default": 1,
+ "title": "Steps",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool can redo one or multiple steps and that steps range from 1-100, but it does not state what happens when there is nothing to redo, whether the action is destructive, or any side effects beyond the redo itself.
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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the parameter explanation is minimal, clear, and useful. No wasted words.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the parameter range, and batch capability. It could mention failure behavior, but that is a minor gap in this otherwise simple tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents the single 'steps' parameter, including the allowed range (1-100) and its default behavior. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only declares an integer with a default.
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 clearly identifies the action ('redo'), the resource ('last undone step'), and the optional scoping ('or the last several'). It is distinct from the sibling project_undo, and the meaning is immediately obvious.
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?
Usage is implied through the word 'redo' and the reference to undone steps, but the description never explicitly tells an agent when to use this tool versus project_undo, project_undo_group, or reset_composition. It gives clear context but not exclusions or alternative selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.