List chunk descriptors for an episode - Returns chunk boundaries and URIs for chunk retrieval. Chunks may be computed on-demand using size/overlap parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| guest | Yes | ||
| overlap | No | ||
| x-hapi-auth-state | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose that chunks may be computed on-demand using size/overlap parameters, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, auth requirements, or potential error conditions, though 'List' implies a safe read operation.
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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition or fluff.
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 list tool without output schema, the description gives a decent overview (chunk boundaries and URIs, on-demand computation). However, it misses important context: what 'guest' refers to, how size/overlap interact, and how this tool relates to sibling chunk-content retrieval. The description is adequate for a simple case but not fully complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions size and overlap parameters as controlling chunk computation, but does not explain their units or semantics. The required 'guest' parameter is not mentioned at all. This adds some meaning but leaves major gaps.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'chunk descriptors for an episode'. It states what is returned (chunk boundaries and URIs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getEpisodesGuestChunksChunkIdtxt that retrieve actual chunk content.
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?
The description implies usage for obtaining chunk metadata rather than content, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus the chunk-content sibling (getEpisodesGuestChunksChunkIdtxt). The on-demand computation hint gives context but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool purposes are mostly distinct, but there is overlap: getEpisodesGuestMetadatajson and getEpisodesGuestTranscriptformat (with json format) both return metadata, and getSearch/postSearch are functionally identical except for HTTP method. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Names mix run-together path-like camelCase (getEpisodesGuestChunksChunkIdtxt) with a different style for postSearch. The 'get' prefix is consistent but 'post' breaks the pattern, and the lack of separators makes names difficult to parse.
8 tools is within the expected range, but the granularity is high—episode retrieval is split across card, metadata, transcript, chunks, and chunk text tools, which could be consolidated without losing functionality.
The domain is a read-only podcast transcript service. It covers listing episodes, retrieving metadata, retrieving transcripts in multiple formats, and searching across metadata and transcript text. No essential operations are missing.