Insert chapter markers at specific timestamps in a podcast project, assigning titles to organize episodes and support listener navigation.
Add a chapter marker at a timeline time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| at_time | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "at_time",
- "title"
-]New value: +[
+ "at_time",
+ "title"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and says almost nothing: it does not state whether chapters must be added in order, what happens on duplicate timestamps, whether an existing chapter at that time is overwritten, or what permission/state the session must be in. It only confirms this is a mutation, which the name already implies.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It earns its brevity, though it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, three undocumented parameters, and unclear time units, the description leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites and side effects. It is not sufficient to call this tool confidently.
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 and largely does not. 'at a timeline time' gestures at at_time but gives no units (seconds, samples, timecode), and neither title nor the optional project_path is mentioned at all.
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 states a specific verb (Add) and resource (a chapter marker) plus the locating dimension (at a timeline time), which is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with remove_chapter_tool or list_chapters_tool, so differentiation relies on the tool name.
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 guidance on when to add a chapter versus editing an existing one, no mention that remove_chapter_tool/list_chapters_tool are the complementary operations, and no prerequisites (e.g. an open project or loaded timeline). Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.