Submit a transcript to get a Voice Gate decision classifying it as ordinary speech, command, retained thought, uncertainty, or no action.
Interpret one transcript and return the final Voice Gate decision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| epoch | No | ||
| session_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the primary output but does not mention side effects, input constraints, idempotency, or what 'final' implies about the decision process. This is thin for a tool with zero annotation support.
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?
A single efficient sentence with no filler. The action and outcome are front-loaded, and 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description omits context needed for correct invocation: the meaning of epoch and session_id, how they affect interpretation, and when this tool should be preferred over list_captures or get_session. The agent is left to infer these from parameter names alone.
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% and the description only implicitly maps 'transcript' to the text parameter. It says nothing about the purpose of epoch or session_id, leaving the optional parameters unexplained beyond their schema types and defaults.
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 ('interpret'), a specific resource ('one transcript'), and a concrete outcome ('final Voice Gate decision'). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools list_captures and get_session, which are list/get operations.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a transcript and need a Voice Gate decision. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it, nor any comparison with the sibling tools list_captures and get_session.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.