Fetch timestamped transcript segments. Use when the user wants timestamps — "jump to where they discuss X", chapter boundaries, durations of specific parts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| episode_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds context about returning timestamped segments, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or handling of non-existent episode_id.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple fetch tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the use case and return type. Could mention potential limitations (e.g., availability of segments for all episodes).
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 has 1 parameter (episode_id) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain the meaning of episode_id beyond the tool context, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name and tool purpose.
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 'Fetch timestamped transcript segments' with specific use cases: timestamps, chapter boundaries, durations. It distinguishes from siblings like get_transcription (full text) and search_transcription (search).
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?
Explicitly states when to use (when user wants timestamps, chapter boundaries, durations), but lacks explicit when-not to use or alternatives beyond what is implied by sibling names.
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.
Tools are largely distinct, covering separate actions (search, get, list, generate, transcribe, save). The main potential confusion is between list_episodes and list_feed_episodes, but descriptions clearly separate local from external.
All tools follow consistent verb_noun snake_case patterns (get_, list_, search_, generate_, transcribe_, save/remove), with no mixed conventions or unexpected styles.
25 tools is at the high end for a server of this scope. The broad domain justifies many functions, but the count feels heavy and some tools could be consolidated without losing clarity.
Discovery, ingestion, transcription, lesson generation, and user account management are all well covered. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to delete or update lessons beyond save/remove.