Stage pending audio cuts at the first transcript text match, or at every match when match_all is enabled, to prepare transcript-driven edits in Podcast MCP.
Stage a pending cut for the first text match, or every match with match_all=True.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | No | ||
| match_all | No | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| review_required | No | ||
| use_inaudible_opt | 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",
- "query"
-]New value: +[
+ "query"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey one important trait: the cut is 'pending' rather than applied, implying a staged/review workflow. It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether prior pending edits are affected, or the effect of review_required and use_inaudible_opt, so significant disclosure gaps remain.
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 primary action comes first and the branching condition follows. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for a 7-parameter mutation tool.
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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the staging/review lifecycle and the role of most parameters are left unaddressed.
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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It conveys meaning for query ('text match') and match_all, but speaker, track_id, project_path, review_required, and use_inaudible_opt carry no explanation anywhere.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Stage a pending cut') and resource ('text match'), and clarifies the first-vs-all branching behaviour. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as cut_utterance_tool, cut_words_tool, or cut_time_range_tool, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
The only guidance is the inline condition 'or every match with match_all=True', which explains one parameter's effect rather than when to pick this tool over the other text-based cut tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.