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. It mentions model performance characteristics and prompt guidance, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, file size constraints, or error conditions. The description provides some operational guidance but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized at three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides model selection guidance, and the third mentions prompt usage. Each sentence adds value, though the structure could be more front-loaded with critical information about required parameters or output formats.

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 complexity (5 parameters, audio processing function) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides basic operational guidance but has significant gaps. It covers model selection well but doesn't explain parameter purposes or behavioral constraints. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should do more to compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description must compensate but provides minimal parameter information. It mentions model selection guidance and that 'You can use prompts to guide the transcription process,' which relates to the 'prompt' parameter. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of 'input_file_name', 'response_format', or 'timestamp_granularities', leaving most parameters undocumented.

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: 'A tool used to transcribe audio files.' It specifies the verb ('transcribe') and resource ('audio files'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transcribe_with_enhancement' or 'chat_with_audio', which likely have overlapping audio processing functions.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different options: 'It is recommended to use `gpt-4o-mini-transcribe` by default. If the user wants maximum performance, use `gpt-4o-transcribe`. Rarely should you use `whisper-1` as it is least performant, but it is available if needed.' This gives clear context for model selection, though it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives.

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