Analyze a podcast track to detect silence, clicks, and hum, revealing cleanup opportunities before editing.
Analyze a track for cleanup opportunities (silence, clicks, hum).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | No | ||
| 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 / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]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. "Analyze" implies a read-only inspection, but the description never confirms whether anything is modified, what permissions or session state are required, or how the tool relates to the downstream cleanup actions (strip_silence_tool, propose_range_mute_tool).
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 well-formed sentence with no filler; the purpose leads. It is tersely efficient rather than padded, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.
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 needn't be described, but the definition still leaves the targeting model (speaker vs track_id vs project_path), the read-only assumption, and the relationship to cleanup actions entirely unexplained for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations.
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?
Three optional parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. The schema exposes speaker, track_id, and project_path with null defaults, but nothing explains which one selects the target, what happens if all are null, or how speaker and track_id relate to each other.
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 ("Analyze") and resource ("a track") plus the signal classes it looks for (silence, clicks, hum). That is enough for an agent to know the operation, but it never distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, audio_diagnostics_tool, which sounds like an overlapping analysis pass.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only hint is the implied workflow of "analyze then clean," which the agent must infer from the phrase "cleanup opportunities" rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.