MCP Server Whisper

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but does not cover critical traits such as whether the tool modifies the original file, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or handles errors. The mention of GPT-4o compatibility adds some context about output usability, but overall, the description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases, which would enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and output relevance (GPT-4o compatibility) but lacks details on behavior, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, reducing the burden, but the description still misses critical context for effective tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies parameters for input file and target formats (mp3/wav) but does not explain 'input_file_name', 'target_format', or 'output_file_name' beyond what the schema provides (e.g., enum values). The description adds minimal semantic value, such as linking formats to GPT-4o compatibility, but fails to detail parameter usage or constraints, resulting in a baseline score.

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's purpose: converting audio files to mp3 or wav formats, with the added context that these are GPT-4o compatible. It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('audio files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'compress_audio' or 'transcribe_audio' by focusing on format conversion rather than compression or transcription. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'create_audio' might overlap in some contexts), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions GPT-4o compatibility, which hints at a use case for AI processing, but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'compress_audio' or 'transcribe_audio'. Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, the agent lacks clear direction for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.