Compare dialogue tracks against the premix by playing both over the same timeline range, so podcast producers can hear mix differences.
Play each dialogue track then premix for the same timeline range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| end_sec | No | ||
| rerender | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not explain that dry_run defaults to true (which presumably means it does not actually play), what rerender controls, whether playback blocks, or what side effects occur. For a tool with a state-changing-looking flag (rerender) this is a significant gap.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the reason it is short is that it under-specifies rather than because every needed detail is compactly stated.
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?
With no annotations, 5 undocumented parameters, and only one sentence, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the behavioral and parameter gaps remain substantial.
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 are 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description only vaguely gestures at the range via 'same timeline range'. It completely omits the non-obvious dry_run (default true) and rerender flags and project_path, leaving them undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('Play') and the two things played (each dialogue track, then the premix) within the same timeline range, which is more specific than a generic play tool. However, it never names or differentiates itself from the many sibling playback tools (play_audio_tool, play_ab_tool, play_compose_tool).
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 implies a comparison workflow but gives no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of any alternative sibling. An agent choosing between this and play_ab_tool or play_compose_tool gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.