Identifies duplicate words across podcast tracks within a specified overlap window, helping producers detect repeated speech and clean up multitrack edits.
Find duplicate words across tracks in an overlap window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_sec | No | ||
| start_sec | 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little. It does not state whether this is a read-only analysis or whether it mutates anything, what an 'overlap window' means or defaults to when start_sec/end_sec are null, or what happens when no duplicates exist.
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 the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance noted elsewhere.
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 described. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves an agent unable to determine defaults, scope, or whether the operation is safe and non-mutating.
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% and the three parameters (start_sec, end_sec, project_path) are undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'overlap window' hints that start_sec/end_sec bound the search, but units, null-default behavior, and the role of project_path are entirely 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 (Find) and resource (duplicate words) with a scope qualifier (across tracks in an overlap window). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as bleed_words_tool, reconcile_transcript_tool, or join_quality_tool, which an agent might reasonably confuse with duplicate/overlap detection.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The description never explains when an agent should reach for this tool versus the many other analysis tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.