Extract up to 45 seconds of spoken audio from a transcription job to verify critical quotations. Requires job ID and start time; client audio support varies.
Return an audio Content block containing up to 45 seconds of actual spoken audio. Useful for directly checking critical quotations. Client audio support varies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| start_seconds | Yes | ||
| duration_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (an audio Content block), the 45-second cap, and the client-support caveat, which is genuine added context. It omits error behavior (e.g., start_seconds beyond the recording length) and how the 45s cap interacts with a larger requested duration.
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 primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The only weakness is that 'up to 45 seconds' is left slightly ambiguous against the duration_seconds parameter.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return type and size limit. For a 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, though, it leaves the agent without parameter semantics or failure-mode information, so it is only minimally sufficient.
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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It references a duration ceiling but never explains job_id, start_seconds units/offset behavior, or the duration_seconds parameter and its 15-second default.
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 and resource ('Return an audio Content block') plus a concrete scope limit (up to 45 seconds of spoken audio), which distinguishes it from full-audio siblings like nass_download_original_audio and nass_start_audio_download. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
'Useful for directly checking critical quotations' implies the intended use case, and 'Client audio support varies' is a caveat. However, it never says when NOT to use it (e.g., for full audio use the download tools) or what to do if the client cannot render audio, so routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.