Place an audio file onto a specific track at a chosen position in seconds, returning the created item's track and index for further edits.
Insert an audio file onto a track.
Args: file_path: Full path to the audio file. position: Position in seconds.
Returns: Object with track_index, item_index of the created item, and position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes | ||
| file_path | Yes | ||
| track_index | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that a new item is created and describes the return object. It does not cover edge cases or side effects, but it is not misleading and provides moderate 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?
The text is short, organized into Args and Returns sections, and contains no filler. The structure is slightly imperfect because track_index is listed as a return field but omitted from the argument list.
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 low-complexity tool, the description plus schema covers the core call: file path, position, track, and return fields. Missing usage guidance and the unexplained track_index argument prevent full 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?
The description documents file_path and position, but omits the required track_index parameter from its Args section; track_index only appears in the Returns section. With schema coverage at 0%, this leaves a required argument unexplained.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: inserting an audio file onto a track. It is specific enough to separate it from MIDI-oriented siblings like create_midi_item or add_midi_note, though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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 statement about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only context is the implicit one supplied by the action itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.