Skip to main content
Glama

setup_fx_chain

Add and configure FX chains across one or many REAPER tracks in a single call, writing params in plugin-safe order so settings like FabFilter bands work.

Instructions

Add and/or configure FX — the only tool for this, for one plugin on one track just as much as many plugins across many tracks. There is no separate single-shot "add one FX" or "set one param" tool: a single fx_chain entry with one track is exactly as simple as those would be, and this is the only path that writes params in the order some plugins require — e.g. FabFilter Pro-Q 3/Pro-C 2 need a band's Used/Enabled flag written before its other params (Frequency, Gain, Shape, ...), or the write has no audible effect and silently looks like it didn't work.

Params are applied in a fixed, deterministic order (not raw dict iteration order) specifically because some plugins (confirmed: FabFilter Pro-Q 3/Pro-C 2) crash if a band's Used/Enabled flag isn't written before its other params — this already handles that, no need to sequence params yourself.

Example — add the same plugin (e.g. an EQ) to 5 different tracks in one call:

[
    {"track_index": 0, "fx_chain": [{"name": "FabFilter Pro-Q 3"}]},
    {"track_index": 1, "fx_chain": [{"name": "FabFilter Pro-Q 3"}]},
    {"track_index": 2, "fx_chain": [{"name": "FabFilter Pro-Q 3"}]},
    {"track_index": 3, "fx_chain": [{"name": "FabFilter Pro-Q 3"}]},
    {"track_index": 4, "fx_chain": [{"name": "FabFilter Pro-Q 3"}]}
]

fx_chain can hold more than one plugin per track too — a whole Saturn + Pro-Q 3 + Pro-C 2 chain, with params, added to several tracks, is still one call.

Example — set up Band 1 (Low Cut) and Band 2 (High Shelf, +2dB) on an EQ that's already track 0's fx_index 1, by index (skips the fuzzy name-matching lookup, marginally faster for a big batch):

[{"track_index": 0, "fx_chain": [
    {"fx_index": 1, "params_by_index": {
        "0": 1.0, "1": 1.0, "2": 0.218, "8": 0.25
    }},
    {"fx_index": 1, "params_by_index": {
        "13": 1.0, "14": 1.0, "15": 0.845, "16": 0.533, "21": 0.375
    }}
]}]

(Same fx_index reused across entries is fine — each entry is an independent set of param writes, not a new FX add.)

Args: tracks: JSON array, one object per track: {"track_index": int, "fx_chain": [...]}, where track_index is 0-based, or -1 for the master track — so a full mastering chain (EQ -> compressor -> saturation -> limiter, with params) can be built in one call, without engine_master wiping the existing chain. Each fx_chain entry is one FX to add-and/or-configure: - "name": str — add new via fuzzy match (default mode). "add_mode": "find_or_add" reuses an existing instance of that plugin instead of adding a duplicate; "add_mode": "find_only" fails if it's not already there. - "fx_index": int — target an FX that's already in the chain (from an earlier setup_fx_chain call, or already present in the project) instead of adding one. - "params": {name: value} — set params by fuzzy name match (e.g. "Band 1 Frequency"). Values 0.0-1.0 normalized. - "params_by_index": {"<index>": value} — same, by exact 0-based param index (keys are strings — JSON object keys always are). Skips the per-param name lookup. - "preset": str — load a preset by name after params are applied.

Every failure is reported per-item in the response's summary ({"error": "..."} on that track or that one param), never a hard abort of the whole batch — a bad track_index, an FX name that doesn't resolve, or a param name/index that doesn't match anything each fail on their own without losing whatever else in the same call succeeded. Check summary rather than assuming a non-throwing call means every item landed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tracksYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers richly. It discloses the deterministic param sequencing and its silent-failure consequence on FabFilter plugins, the per-item error reporting with no hard abort, the -1 master-track semantics, the reuse of fx_index across entries, and explicitly instructs the agent to check 'summary' rather than assume success. This is exactly the behavioral depth needed for a mutation 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and the critical FabFilter sequencing warning appears early, before the examples. The two JSON examples are valuable and earn their place. However, the description is verbose — the FabFilter ordering point is made twice (intro paragraph and the param-ordering section) — and the params_by_index example is dense. For a complex 1-param tool the length is largely justified, but a small trim would tighten it.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: purpose, parameter grammar, error model, master-track handling, ordering behavior, and returned 'summary' contract. There is no more information an agent needs to call this correctly. The only minor omission — a precise success-return shape — is mitigated by the explicit instruction to check 'summary'.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema provides only a single 'tracks' string with 0% coverage, so the description must fully compensate — and it does. It specifies the JSON array shape, the track_index (0-based, -1 for master), each fx_chain entry's modes (name/add_mode, fx_index, params, params_by_index, preset), normalized 0.0-1.0 values, and string keys for params_by_index. It even explains the fuzzy-match vs index-lookup tradeoff. Nothing about the parameter's meaning is left undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add and/or configure FX') and immediately claims sole ownership of this capability ('the only tool for this'). It explicitly routes away from any single-shot or sibling alternative, distinguishing itself from fx_remove_batch, fx_get_chain, engine_master and the sibling batch tools. An agent can immediately tell what it does and that it is the unique path for FX writes.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: batching FX adds/configure across tracks, and as the only path for order-dependent param writes. It contrasts with engine_master ('without engine_master wiping the existing chain') and explains the find_or_add/find_only modes. It does not, however, give explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance (e.g., when to reach for fx_remove_batch or fx_rename), leaving exclusion conditions implied rather than stated.

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