Identify and list transcript words below a confidence threshold so podcast editors can review uncertain text.
List words below a confidence threshold for human review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threshold | 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 disclosure burden. 'List' strongly implies a non-destructive read and the output schema covers the return shape, but nothing is said about permissions, scoping via project_path, or pagination behavior.
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 tight sentence with no wasted words and the key filtering concept front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse given the gaps it leaves.
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. Still, the definition is thin for a tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and multiple confusable siblings.
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 two undocumented parameters. It does explain the directional semantics of 'threshold' (words below it), but says nothing about 'project_path' or that the threshold defaults to 0.7, leaving half the parameters unexplained.
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 ('List') and resource ('words below a confidence threshold'), making the filtering criterion explicit. However, it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as low_audibility_words_tool, flagged_words_tool, and bleed_words_tool, which are all 'list words' tools an agent must choose between.
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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, even though several sibling tools surface different word categories. An agent has no criteria for selecting this tool over flagged_words_tool or low_audibility_words_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.