Extract Audio — Extract the audio track from a video file as MP3, WAV, OGG, FLAC, or AAC. [category: media]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Video to pull the soundtrack from (any FFmpeg-readable container). Audio is always re-encoded to `format`, never stream-copied. | |
| format | No | Values outside the enum are a 400, not a silent fallback. wav/flac come back lossless; mp3/ogg/aac are lossy re-encodes. | mp3 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false) provide little safety context, so the description should disclose side effects or output behavior, but it only restates the extraction action. The lossy/lossless encoding and 400-on-invalid-enum behaviors live in the param schema, not the tool description.
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 one clear sentence and front-loads the action before the format list. It loses a point for repeating the 'Extract Audio' title and appending a category tag that adds little for an agent.
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 two-parameter tool with completely documented schema, the bare description is workable, but with no output schema it never describes the return value or how the extracted audio is delivered. It also omits usage boundaries relative to sibling audio/media tools.
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 100%, so the schema already documents `file` and `format` thoroughly. The description adds the list of formats, matching the enum, but no extra semantic meaning beyond that baseline.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Extract the audio track from a video file') and enumerates output formats, making the operation unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like media_extract_frames, media_trim_audio, and media_merge_audio.
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 by naming the extraction task, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what preconditions apply. With nearby siblings like media_extract_frames and media_trim_audio, an explicit 'use this when you need the soundtrack, not frames' would be stronger.
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.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
