AIGigLab MCP Server

fish_transcribe_audio

Transcribe audio files or base64-encoded audio content into text using automatic speech recognition, with support for multiple languages.

Instructions

Transcribe audio using FishAudio ASR.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fish_transcribe_audio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	No	Absolute local path to audio file
`language`	No	Language code (default: en)
`file_content`	No	Base64 encoded audio content

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Transcribe audio' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. The tool likely creates a transcript, but this is not confirmed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence and front-loaded. While concise, it lacks sufficient detail to be fully useful. It earns its place but could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the tool handles file vs. file_content, what output format to expect, or that one of the two inputs is likely required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (transcribe) and the resource (audio) using FishAudio ASR. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'transcribe_audio', leaving ambiguity about when to use which.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transcribe_audio'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context such as supported audio formats.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.