Retrieve the effect chain for a specific track or speaker in a podcast project. Helps producers inspect audio processing settings and applied effects.
List the effect chain for a track or speaker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation via 'List' but does not state that nothing is mutated, that all three parameters are optional, or what happens if none are supplied. An output schema exists, which covers return shape, but the description adds no behavioral context.
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 well-formed sentence with zero waste and the key noun front-loaded, but its brevity is under-specification rather than economy given three 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?
For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the caller without enough to choose between speaker, track_id, and project_path, or to know the effect of omitting all of them. The presence of an output schema excuses it from documenting return values, but the rest of the gap remains.
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 three parameters. The description hints that 'track' and 'speaker' are the selection axes, loosely mapping to track_id and speaker, but project_path is entirely unexplained and there is no indication that speaker/track_id are alternative selectors or what the defaults mean.
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?
Clear verb and resource: 'List the effect chain' names exactly what is retrieved, and it scopes it to 'a track or speaker'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent add_effect_tool / remove_effect_tool / set_effect_bypass_tool siblings, so the agent must infer this is the read counterpart.
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 and no mention of alternatives. It never says whether speaker and track_id are mutually exclusive selections, nor when project_path is required, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.