Get Dubbed File. Returns dub as a streamed MP3 or MP4 file. If this dub has been edited using Dubbing Studio you need to use the resource render endpoint as this endpoint only returns the original automatic dub result.
Bulk support: accepts dubbing_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| dubbing_id | Yes | ||
| dubbing_ids | No | ||
| language_code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds practical behavioral context: output is streamed MP3/MP4, only the original automatic dub is returned, and dubbing_ids enables bulk execution. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 short, front-loaded, and mostly information-dense. The opening 'Get Dubbed File' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the rest of the text earns its place.
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?
The description provides the output format and a key special-case constraint, making basic use understandable. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves important usage ambiguity around required language_code and the relationship among dubbing_id, dubbing_ids, and language_code.
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 for parameter meaning. It only clarifies dubbing_ids as enabling batch execution; it does not explain required dubbing_id and language_code semantics, nor how they are intended to interact with dubbing_ids.
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 identifies the operation: returns a dub as a streamed MP3 or MP4 file. It also distinguishes the tool from related dubbing metadata/transcript tools and highlights the limitation for Dubbing Studio-edited results.
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?
There is explicit guidance to use the resource render endpoint instead when the dub was edited in Dubbing Studio, which makes the non-edited/automatic-dub use case clear. It does not broadly explain other alternative endpoints, but the key exclusion is well covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.