Seek playback to a specific time in the current media track using seconds, with relative +N/-N jumps and optional player targeting.
Seek to a position in the current track (in seconds)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player | No | Specific player name (optional) | |
| position | Yes | Position in seconds (use +N or -N for relative seek) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the schema – it doesn't say what happens if no track is active, whether it resumes playback, or how out-of-range positions behave.
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?
One sentence with the key restriction ('current track') front-loaded and zero wasted words.
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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. It only lacks edge-case behavior, which is minor here.
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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the relative-seek syntax ('+N or -N') and the optional player parameter. The description merely repeats 'in seconds', adding no meaning the schema doesn't already carry, so it sits below the baseline 3.
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?
Specific verb ('Seek') plus resource ('position in the current track') lets an agent distinguish it from media_next/media_previous, which change tracks rather than position. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the media-control vocabulary and the 'current track' scoping. There is no explicit statement of when to use seek versus media_play_pause or media_next, nor any precondition such as requiring an active player.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.