Convert audio or video files to text using local Whisper transcription on CPU. Specify file path and optional language for accurate speech-to-text output.
Transcribe an audio/video file with Whisper (local, CPU).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Audio or video file path | |
| language | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. The description adds minor context (Whisper model, local CPU execution) but doesn't disclose other behaviors like error handling, output format, or file format restrictions. Given annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes to the purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core action and model context, but it omits details like output format, supported file types, or prerequisites. The missing language parameter explanation is a notable gap, though the schema's default null offers some hint. Overall, it's sufficient but not thorough.
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 50% (path has a description, language does not). The description does not compensate for the undocumented 'language' parameter, nor does it add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The agent is left without guidance on how to use the optional language parameter.
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 the verb 'Transcribe' and the resource 'audio/video file', and adds the specific method 'Whisper (local, CPU)'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'listen' by indicating file-based transcription rather than real-time listening, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, with no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or why one might choose this over siblings like 'listen'. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.