studio_media_infoRead local media metadata such as duration, codecs, dimensions, FPS, streams, and declared spherical projection; missing projection is reported as unknown.
Read local duration/codecs/dimensions/FPS/streams and declared spherical projection, including MP3/WAV/LRV. Missing projection is unknown; metadata does not prove stitching quality or camera-mode eligibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: supported formats (MP3/WAV/LRV), the treatment of missing projection as unknown, and the crucial caveat that metadata does not prove stitching quality or camera-mode eligibility. This goes beyond annotations and is valuable for correct interpretation.
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 tightly packed sentences front-load the core functionality and follow with critical limitations. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the name or annotations.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the returned data fields and clarifies interpretation limits. It leaves minor gaps around path semantics and error behavior, but the annotations and field enumeration make it largely complete.
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 the single 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate, but it only implies supported file types (MP3/WAV/LRV) without explaining path format, absoluteness, or error handling. It provides minimal semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and enumerates the exact metadata fields returned (duration, codecs, dimensions, FPS, streams, spherical projection), making the tool's function unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like studio_import_media or studio_verify_export, but the local file inspection focus is clear.
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, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The caveat about metadata not proving stitching quality is a limitation on interpretation, not a usage rule for selecting the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.