Skip to main content
Glama

studio.replace_transcribed

Replace the transcript with fresh rows from your own transcription. Rows the operator hand-edited (source 'manual') SURVIVE - only machine-transcribed rows are replaced, so a re-transcribe never silently discards someone's correction. Rows are re-sorted by start time.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "captions": "<captions>"
    },
    "name": "studio.replace_transcribed"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
captionsYesThe new transcript, in any order.
project_idYesThe studio project (vp_…) this tool acts on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing critical preservation semantics: manual rows survive and only machine-transcribed rows are replaced. It also notes that rows are re-sorted by start time, which is important behavioral context not found in the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is three tightly written sentences with zero waste. The critical preservation rule is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral details an agent needs: what gets replaced, what survives, and how rows are ordered. Nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds meaningful clarification about the 'manual' row type by explaining that these survive replacement, which helps an agent understand how to construct the captions array.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('transcript') and clarifies the source ('fresh rows from your own transcription'). It distinguishes itself implicitly from studio.transcribe by emphasizing replacement rather than generation, but it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.

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 context implies this tool is for when you already have your own transcription and want to replace the existing one. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus studio.transcribe or other transcript tools, nor does it state exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources