rename_speakerReplaces a speaker's label throughout an entire transcript and all exports in one operation. Retrieve speaker ids from get_speakers first.
Replaces a speaker's label across the whole transcript in one operation, including in every export. Free. Get the speaker ids from get_speakers first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | Yes | The name to use. | |
| job_id | Yes | The job id. | |
| speaker_id | Yes | A speaker id, e.g. "speaker_0". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the blast radius (every occurrence in the transcript, including exports) and that the operation is free. It stops short of saying whether the rename is reversible or what happens to exports already generated.
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?
Three compact clauses, each carrying distinct information: effect, scope, cost, prerequisite. Front-loaded with the mutating action and no filler.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and no destructiveHint annotation, the description covers effect, scope, cost, and the id prerequisite. Only reversibility/undo behavior and the return value are unaddressed, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds provenance for speaker_id (from get_speakers); it says nothing extra about label format, length limits, or job_id beyond what the schema already documents.
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 (replaces) plus the exact resource and blast radius: a speaker's label across the whole transcript and every export. That scope statement is what separates it from the read-only sibling get_speakers, which it explicitly routes to for ids.
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?
Gives a concrete prerequisite ('get the speaker ids from `get_speakers` first') and a cost fact ('Free'), so the agent knows what to call before and what this call costs. It does not state when not to use it or that it is irreversible, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.