List chapter markers in timeline order for a podcast project so producers can inspect structure and verify sequencing before edits.
List chapter markers in timeline order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about scope, permissions, whether a project must be open, or how many chapters are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.
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 or repetition. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than pure economy.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, with no annotations and a completely undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent guessing about scope and the meaning of the optional project_path.
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?
There is one parameter (project_path) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell from either source whether omitting project_path scopes the listing to the active session or returns nothing.
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 ('List chapter markers') plus the ordering guarantee ('in timeline order'), which an agent can act on directly. It doesn't explicitly contrast with add_chapter_tool/remove_chapter_tool, but the verb makes the distinction obvious without opening their schemas.
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, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Whether this lists chapters for the current session or for a specific project is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.