transcribe-mcp
transcribe-mcp
Transcribe audio y video, y encuentra el silencio que vale la pena cortar — desde cualquier cliente MCP. Sin cuenta, sin clave API, sin suscripción. Tu agente paga una fracción de un centavo por llamada, en USDC, directamente desde una billetera que controlas.
{
"mcpServers": {
"transcribe": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "transcribe-mcp"],
"env": { "TRANSCRIBE_MCP_WALLET_KEY": "0x..." }
}
}
}Esa es toda la configuración. No hay nada a lo que registrarse.
Herramientas
herramienta | qué hace | precio |
| una URL pública de audio/video → texto, tiempos, idioma detectado | $0.05 |
| subtítulos o tiempos → los segmentos que vale la pena cortar, y lo que ahorrarías | $0.002 |
| precios, límites y cómo funciona el pago | gratis |
find_dead_air consume exactamente lo que devuelve transcribe_url, así que los dos se encadenan:
transcribe una charla, luego corta el silencio de ella.
"cuts": [{ "from": 2.55, "to": 10.85, "seconds": 8.3, "reason": "silence" }],
"stats": { "sourceSeconds": 20, "speechSeconds": 5.05, "wouldSavePercent": 74.75 }Related MCP server: framefetch
Por qué pago por llamada en lugar de una clave API
Porque un agente no puede llenar un formulario de registro. x402 es un pago nativo de HTTP:
el servidor responde 402 Payment Required con un precio, el cliente lo paga, la solicitud se procesa.
Sin panel de control, sin rotación de claves, sin mínimo, sin factura mensual. Si nunca lo llamas,
nunca pagas nada.
La liquidación es en USDC en Base (eip155:8453).
Ejecutarlo sin una billetera
Funciona bien. shop_info responde, tools/list funciona, y las herramientas de pago te dicen qué
configurar. Mira antes de financiar algo.
Lo que no hará
No gastará de más. Cada llamada se filtra a través de un límite de $0.10; una cotización por encima se descarta y el cliente se niega a pagar en lugar de adivinar.
No te cobrará por un rechazo. Los argumentos incorrectos se detectan localmente y nunca salen de tu máquina. Un
4xxde la tienda nunca se liquida.No mentirá sobre una venta. Si falta el encabezado de liquidación, lo dice en lugar de informar un pago que no puede probar.
Los archivos tienen un límite de 800 KB. Los que exceden el tamaño se rechazan gratis, antes del pago.
Configuración
variable | significado |
| clave privada de una billetera que tenga un poco de USDC en Base. Requerida solo para las herramientas de pago. |
Usa una billetera dedicada con unos pocos dólares, no tu principal. Esto es cierto para toda herramienta a la que le entregues una clave privada, y es cierto aquí.
Pruebas
npm testMIT.
Available Tools
3 toolsfind_dead_airFind the silence worth cuttingA
Given subtitles or timings, return the spans of dead air and how much of the runtime cutting them would save. Costs $0.002 per call — a tenth of transcription, because the expensive half is not redone. Feed it the segments transcribe_url returns.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vtt | No | WebVTT subtitles. Use this or segments, not both. | |
| segments | No | Timings as [{start, end, text}] in seconds — exactly what transcribe_url returns. | |
| durationSeconds | No | Total runtime in seconds. Improves the saving estimate; optional. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the per-call cost, that 'the expensive half is not redone' (implying caching or reuse), and that it returns spans and savings estimates. This is transparent for a read‑only analysis tool, though limits like max input size or error handling are not mentioned.
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?
The description delivers core purpose in the first sentence, then adds essential usage and cost info in a second sentence. No redundant words; every sentence earns its place. It is front‑loaded and efficient.
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?
The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the input options (VTT or segments), the pipeline from transcribe_url, and the nature of the output (spans and saving estimate). It lacks a precise specification of the return format, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about using segments from transcribe_url and the cost, but does not significantly expand on what the parameters mean beyond the schema. The value comes from pipeline guidance rather than parameter detail.
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 clearly states the tool returns 'the spans of dead air and how much of the runtime cutting them would save,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'transcribe_url' by focusing on silence detection rather than transcription.
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?
The description explicitly tells the agent to 'feed it the segments transcribe_url returns,' establishing a clear pipeline. It also highlights the cost advantage ($0.002 vs. transcription cost). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if no subtitles or timings are available).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
shop_infoWhat this costs before you spend anythingA
Free. Returns the prices, the size limit, the chain and how payment works, so an agent can decide whether to call the paid tools at all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the tool is free, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it doesn't disclose auth requirements, side effects, or whether results are cached or dynamic. This partial transparency is adequate for a simple cost-checking tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence front-loaded with 'Free.' It wastes no words while conveying purpose, output, and usage context. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns and when to use it. It lacks details about response format or authentication, but the low complexity makes it complete enough for a simple info tool.
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?
With zero parameters, the input schema requires no explanation. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns, which is not parameter semantics but does inform the agent's decision to call it.
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 clearly states the tool returns specific information (prices, size limit, chain, payment) and positions it as a free decision support tool before using paid tools. This distinguishes it from siblings transcribe_url and find_dead_air, which have different purposes.
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?
The description explicitly tells the agent to use this tool before calling paid tools to decide if they are needed. While it doesn't list exclusions or alternative tools, the context of preventing unnecessary paid calls is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
transcribe_urlTranscribe audio or video from a URLA
Turn a publicly reachable audio or video URL into text with per-segment timings and a detected language. Costs $0.05 per call, paid in USDC from your own wallet. The file must be under 800 KB; oversized files are refused for free before any payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL of the audio or video file. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses cost, payment method, file size limit, and refusal policy for oversized files. It also describes output behavior (per-segment timings and language detection). Missing details on error handling for unreachable URLs but overall provides key behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adding non-redundant information (purpose, cost, size limit). Concise without missing critical details.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, size limit, and output shape (timings, language). It is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke, though more detail on output format would increase completeness.
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 coverage is 100% with a basic param description. The tool description adds value beyond the schema: constraints (public reachable, <800KB), cost, and output details. This helps an agent understand the parameter's context and limits.
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 clearly states the tool transcribes audio/video from a URL into text with per-segment timings and detected language. The verb 'transcribe' and resource 'audio or video from a URL' are specific and distinct from unrelated sibling tools.
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?
The description tells when to use: for public URLs needing transcription with timings and language detection. It provides important constraints (file <800KB, cost $0.05, USDC payment). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or suggest alternatives, though siblings are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
3 tool updates
v0.1.2- First observed
find_dead_air - First observed
shop_info - First observed
transcribe_url
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool serves a completely distinct role: transcribe_url handles audio-to-text, find_dead_air post-processes timings to find silence, and shop_info provides pricing metadata. There is zero overlap in purpose.
Tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (transcribe_url, find_dead_air, shop_info) with snake_case. shop_info deviates slightly from the domain-action style of the others, but it is still predictable and readable.
Three tools is perfectly scoped for this server: a core action (transcribe), a derived analysis (find_dead_air), and informational helper (shop_info). No tool feels extraneous, and the count matches the narrow purpose well.
The tool surface covers the key transcription workflow and provides a helpful cost info tool. An obvious gap is the lack of an update or delete operation for transcripts, but for a consumption-oriented service this is reasonable. The surface feels complete for its intended use.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
AI transcription from URLs or files. 119 languages, diarization, SRT/VTT/text export.
Transcribe any audio or video URL to text, SRT and VTT, with chunking and only-new episodes
Verbatim transcription of public video/audio URLs to clean text, SRT, and timestamped records.
Pay-per-use AI and data tools via x402: image, video, music, voice, search, crypto. USDC.
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to transcribe audio files using dTelecom's real-time speech-to-text with pay-per-use USDC micropayments, no API keys required.310 npm1MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAgent-first video-data API + MCP across 6 platforms (YouTube/Shorts, TikTok, Reddit, Instagram, Pinterest): metadata, insights, Whisper transcript, and parametric frames. Pay-per-call via x402 (USDC) or Stripe.28 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to transcribe audio and video from URLs or local files with high accuracy, speaker diarization, 119 languages, and word-level timestamps, while also supporting transcription management and caption export in SRT, WebVTT, or plain text.14264 npm11MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables extracting clean, structured markdown from any URL—stripping nav, ads, and scripts—for RAG pipelines and AI research agents, with pay-per-call micropayments via x402.MIT