Jump a podcast project's state to a chosen history index to revisit or restore earlier edits; optionally rerender the DAW timeline.
Jump the project state to a history index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| rerender | 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "index"
-]New value: +[
+ "index"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says it jumps state. It does not state whether this is destructive, whether it discards unsaved changes, whether it can be undone, or what permissions are required. For a state-mutating operation, these omissions are significant.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, with every word earning its place. However, given the tool's complexity and three parameters, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.
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, but the description is still inadequate for a state-changing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage. It omits behavioral context, parameter meaning, and usage constraints that an agent needs to invoke it safely.
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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only vaguely references the 'history index' (index), while rerender and project_path are entirely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.
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 clear action ('Jump') and target ('project state to a history index'), making the tool's purpose identifiable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like history_undo, history_redo, or history_list, leaving ambiguity about when direct index navigation is preferred.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus history_undo, history_redo, or history_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions. The purpose implies usage but provides no actionable context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.