Report pending-review and applied podcast edits, showing total seconds cut and per-track impact for production review.
Report pending-review and applied edits, with seconds cut in total and by track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| markdown | 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the report's content (pending vs applied edits, seconds cut in aggregate and per track), which is genuine behavioral value, but says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, or cost/latency.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and the key metric front-loaded. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to cover two undocumented parameters.
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 not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, an agent still cannot tell whether 'markdown' changes the response format or what 'project_path' defaults to, leaving a real gap for a two-parameter tool.
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% for both parameters. The description never mentions 'markdown' (which controls output format) or 'project_path' (which selects the project), so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema. Only the phrase 'by track' hints at grouping, not at any parameter.
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 and resource: it reports both pending-review and applied edits, and quantifies the payload as 'seconds cut in total and by track'. This distinguishes it from list_applied_edits_tool (applied only) and list_edit_decisions_tool, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 is given. The description does not say when an agent should call this impact report rather than list_applied_edits_tool, list_edit_decisions_tool, or reconciliation_status_tool, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.