AIGigLab MCP Server

transcribe_audio

Convert spoken audio into written text. Specify a local file or base64 encoded audio for transcription.

Instructions

Transcribe an audio file to text.

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": "transcribe_audio"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	No	ABSOLUTE LOCAL PATH to the audio file on the Windows machine (e.g., 'C:/Users/name/Downloads/file.mp3'). Do NOT use virtual paths like /mnt/.
`model_id`	No	Model ID (default: scribe_v1)
`file_content`	No	Base64 encoded content of the audio file (Alternative to 'file' for drag-and-drop)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention supported audio formats, processing time, async behavior, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description is essentially silent on behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it is too minimal. While not verbose, it omits necessary context; brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should indicate the return format (e.g., plain text, SRT). It also lacks details on error handling, supported audio codecs, or asynchronous processing. The tool handles audio files, a domain requiring more context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description adds no extra meaning. The schema already explains parameters (absolute local path, model ID with default, base64 alternative). Baseline score of 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 'Transcribe an audio file to text' clearly states the verb 'transcribe' and the resource 'audio file', with output 'text'. It distinguishes from siblings like compose_music or synthesize_voice, though not from fish_transcribe_audio.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fish_transcribe_audio, or prerequisites such as supported audio formats or file size limits. The description provides no contextual cues for selection.

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