Skip to main content
Glama
yiw190

reaper-mcp

by yiw190
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

send

Manage REAPER track routing: list, add, delete, or update auxiliary track-to-track routing entries with volume, pan, mute, fader mode, and channel pairs.

Instructions

Track sends. action: list | add | delete | update. track_index is the source (-1 master). dest_index is the destination track. add/update take volume_db, pan, mute, mode (post_fader | pre_fader | pre_fx) and channel routing: src_channel / dst_channel = first channel of the stereo pair, 0-based (dst_channel 2 = channels 3/4, a compressor's sidechain input; the destination's channel count is raised to fit).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
panNo
modeNo
muteNo
actionYes
volume_dbNo
dest_indexNo
send_indexNo
dst_channelNo
src_channelNo
track_indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / dst_channel
      Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 62,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / mode
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "post_fader",
+    "pre_fader",
+    "pre_fx"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / src_channel
      Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 62,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses source/destination semantics and that the destination channel count is raised to fit routing, but it does not state that delete is destructive, permission/error behavior, or exactly what update changes.

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 front-loaded with the resource and action set, then follows with routing details. It is dense but efficient, with little wasted text, though it could be structured more clearly for scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits `send_index` entirely and says nothing about list output or error behavior. It provides valuable routing context but leaves material gaps for safe invocation.

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?

At 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does explain action, `track_index`/master, `dest_index`, volume_db, pan, mute, mode, and src/dst channel routing. However, `send_index` is never mentioned and ranges/defaults are left implicit, so the compensation is incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (track sends) and enumerates the supported actions, so an agent can tell it manages send routing rather than tracks, items, or FX. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The action enum supplies operation-level guidance and `track_index` is clarified with `-1 master`, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites for add/delete/update. Usage is implied by action names rather than actively guided.

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