Play two WAV files back-to-back with a short silence gap. Use for podcast A/B comparisons or audio previews.
Play two existing WAVs back-to-back with a short silence gap (one concat).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wav_a | Yes | ||
| wav_b | Yes | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| gap_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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "wav_a",
- "wav_b"
-]New value: +[
+ "wav_a",
+ "wav_b"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses genuine behavior beyond a plain 'play' — two WAVs are concatenated with a silence gap into one output — but says nothing about session/playback state requirements, side effects on other playback, or what dry_run triggers.
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; the action and its defining mechanic arrive immediately.
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, but with five undocumented parameters and zero annotations the definition is thin on the operational context (state requirements, dry_run semantics, path handling) an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies wav_a/wav_b ('two existing WAVs') and loosely gestures at gap_sec ('short silence gap'), but never explains that the gap is configurable, nor what dry_run or project_path 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?
States a specific verb and resource (play two existing WAVs back-to-back with a silence gap) and clarifies the mechanism ('one concat'). However, it never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings like play_ab_tool, play_compare_tool, or play_audio_tool, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.
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 statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives despite a dense cluster of playback siblings. The agent is left to infer when A/B WAV playback is preferable to play_ab_tool or play_compare_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.