Skip to main content
Glama

setup_fx_chain

Add and configure FX chains on one or many REAPER tracks in a single call, applying plugin parameters in a deterministic order required by some plugins.

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. - "named_config": {key: value} — plugin state that isn't an automatable param, written before params, e.g. {"BANDENABLED4": "1"} to switch on ReaEQ's 5th band. Each key is read back and reported in named_config_set with ok — trust that, not the write.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tracksYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses deterministic param-write ordering required by specific plugins (FabFilter Pro-Q 3/Pro-C 2 crash or silently no-op otherwise), that `named_config` keys are read back and must be trusted via `named_config_set` over the write itself, that params are 0.0-1.0 normalized, and that -1 targets the master track. Critically, it discloses failure semantics: per-item errors in `summary` rather than a hard abort, with an explicit warning not to assume a non-throwing call succeeded.

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?

Strongly front-loaded — purpose in sentence one, mode selection next, errors last — and the worked examples earn their space for a nested JSON-string parameter. It loses a point for restating the FabFilter write-order rationale twice in near-identical form, which could be one sentence.

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?

Given one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: input structure, mode selection, ordering guarantees, per-item error reporting, and even how to verify `named_config` results. The absence of an output schema is compensated by naming the `summary` and `named_config_set` fields the agent must inspect.

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 schema is effectively empty (one `tracks` string, 0% coverage), so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: it defines the JSON array shape, `track_index` 0-based/-1-for-master, and every `fx_chain` entry key with types, defaults, and semantics. It stops just short of 5 because the entry keys are described prose-style rather than enumerating which are mutually exclusive or required, though the examples imply it.

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 scopes it ('one plugin on one track just as much as many plugins across many tracks'). It explicitly preempts the sibling question by stating there is no separate single-shot add/set-param tool, so an agent knows this is the only path without reading another schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit selection rules for each sub-mode: `name` to add (fuzzy match), `add_mode: find_or_add` / `find_only` to reuse or require an existing instance, `fx_index` to target an in-chain FX, `params` vs `params_by_index`, `preset` after params. It also names the alternative it avoids ('without engine_master wiping the existing chain') and shows a batch-vs-single equivalence example, leaving little to inference.

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