Feed an audio packet's sequence number, RTP timestamp, payload size, and arrival time into an adaptive jitter buffer for playout decisions and packet loss concealment.
ingest packet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seq_num | Yes | ||
| arrival_ms | Yes | ||
| payload_bytes | Yes | ||
| rtp_timestamp | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing. It is unclear whether this mutates simulation state, buffers a packet, requires prior initialization, or is idempotent – critical unknowns for a tool taking four required packet-timing fields.
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 two-word description is short but by under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded purpose or supporting detail to earn 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?
A four-parameter, fully-required tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis to construct a correct call or predict effects.
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% across four required parameters (seq_num, rtp_timestamp, payload_bytes, arrival_ms), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Acceptable ranges, units (ms vs ticks), and ordering constraints are entirely undocumented.
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 is a verbatim tautology of the tool name 'ingest_packet' – it restates 'ingest packet' with no additional specificity. It does not identify what a packet is in this domain (RTP/jitter simulation, per the siblings) or what ingesting it accomplishes.
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?
No guidance whatsoever on when to call this versus siblings like get_jitter_telemetry or extract_playout_frame. No prerequisites, ordering, or state requirements are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.