Check the Lua bridge to get the current project tempo, play state, and track list. Use this first to verify REAPER is connected and ready before running other commands.
Check the Lua bridge and return project tempo, play state, and tracks. Call first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'check' but does not state side effects, failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the bridge is not connected), or whether any state is modified. This is a significant gap for a tool that is presumably the first point of contact.
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 two short sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool does, and the second tells the agent when to call it. It is front-loaded and free of filler.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description adequately covers its purpose and the critical 'call first' usage. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly lists the returned items, so an agent knows what to expect. It lacks deeper context about output formatting, but that is minor for such a 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?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds no parameter-related confusion. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than nonexistent inputs.
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 states a specific action ('Check the Lua bridge') and the exact data returned ('project tempo, play state, and tracks'), distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like transport or track. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.
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?
'Call first' provides a clear when-to-use instruction, establishing it as a prerequisite for other tools. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.