Run audio diagnostics on a time window to detect clipping, hum, and level issues in podcast tracks, helping producers identify and fix problem audio before editing or publishing.
Run audio diagnostics (clipping, hum, level) on a time window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_sec | No | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | No | ||
| start_sec | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only analysis or a mutation, whether it requires an active session or project context, what permissions are needed, or how costly/long-running it is. The parenthetical check list is the only substantive behavioral detail.
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; the verb and scope lead, and the enumerated checks are packed in without waste. Nothing in it is redundant.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to say how the input parameters scope the diagnostics or what context (session/project) is required.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Time window' loosely maps to start_sec/end_sec, but speaker, track_id, and project_path are never addressed, leaving the agent to guess at scoping and target selection.
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 ('Run'), resource ('audio diagnostics'), and enumerates the checks performed (clipping, hum, level) over a 'time window' scope. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from adjacent analysis siblings such as check_loudness_tool, audibility_map_tool, join_quality_tool, or analyze_cleanup_tool, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.
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 use this tool versus the many other diagnostic/QA tools in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication of whether it is a precursor to other tools or a standalone check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.