Find candidate quiet intervals in an audio file by returning time ranges for review; it reports suggestions, not automatic cuts, and accounts for mic start delays before editing.
Report candidate quiet intervals in the supplied audio, not automatic cuts. Separate mic times require adding its startDelayMs before editing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| noiseDb | No | ||
| filePath | Yes | ||
| minDurationSec | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are candidates, not cuts (non-destructive advisory behavior), and surfaces a real domain caveat about startDelayMs for separately-timed mics. It still omits detection thresholds, permissions, and output shape, so it is only partially transparent for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 tight sentences with the advisory scope front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat context-dependent (it assumes knowledge of what startDelayMs belongs to), costing a point.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage mean the agent gets no picture of the returned interval list, units, or how noiseDb/minDurationSec shape results. The description leaves significant gaps for a three-parameter detection tool.
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% and the description never explains noiseDb (default -38 dB) or minDurationSec (default 1s), so the two parameters that control detection are undocumented anywhere. The only named field, startDelayMs, is not a parameter of this tool, so it adds context but no parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('candidate quiet intervals in the supplied audio') and immediately scopes it as advisory rather than an editing action, which distinguishes it from the cut-oriented siblings in the namespace. It does not name a specific sibling like cut_ranges, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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?
'not automatic cuts' implies this tool is for inspection/advisory reporting while a cutting tool would be used for edits, which is usable implied guidance. However, it never explicitly states when to reach for this versus cut_ranges, nor any prerequisites such as requiring an open project or loaded media.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.