Skip to main content
Glama
calebn

Podcast MCP

by calebn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

correct_transcript_phrase_tool

Replace a transcript word range with corrected phrase text, optionally refusing the edit if the expected words changed and requiring a source ID for multitrack takes.

Instructions

Replace a word range's text with corrected phrase text.

Pass expected_text (the space-joined words you read for this range) to refuse the fix if those words changed meanwhile; omit to skip. source_id names the recording whose words word_index counts; it is required on a track recorded as several takes, and the refusal is word_source_required.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
new_textYes
track_idYes
source_idNo
project_pathNo
expected_textNo
end_word_indexYes
start_word_indexYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_text
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Expected Text"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path / default
      Added value: +null
    • removedInput schema / properties / project_path / type
      Removed value: -"string"
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Source Id"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "project_path",
-  "track_id",
-  "start_word_index",
-  "end_word_index",
-  "new_text"
-]New value: +[
+  "track_id",
+  "start_word_index",
+  "end_word_index",
+  "new_text"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: optimistic-concurrency refusal when expected_text no longer matches, and the word_source_required refusal code when a multi-take track lacks source_id. It omits permissions, reversibility/undo, and rate context, but the concurrency and error semantics are unusually concrete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by targeted parameter guidance; little wasted text. The backtick-heavy phrasing is dense but each sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 not be described, and refusal behaviors are covered. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, 7 params, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key input semantics and safety/mutation context unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies expected_text and source_id but omits track_id, new_text, project_path, and even the boundary params it references only obliquely as 'word_index' rather than start_word_index/end_word_index.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Replace a word range's text with corrected phrase text'), which is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling correct_transcript_tool, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it would pick this phrase-level tool over that one.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the conditional use of expected_text (refuse if words changed) and when source_id is required, which is useful. But it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus correct_transcript_tool, precorrect_transcript_tool, or find_replace_transcript_tool, leaving alternative selection implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools