Apply automatic transcript precorrections to podcast projects; use dry_run to preview changes without altering transcript words.
Apply automatic transcript precorrections; dry_run previews without changing words.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | 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, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral distinction: dry_run previews without changing words, implying the non-dry-run path mutates the transcript. It does not state reversibility, permissions, scope of changes, or idempotency, which are material for a mutation tool.
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 tightly-packed sentence with the action front-loaded and the dry_run semantics trailing it. No filler, no redundancy, every clause carries information.
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. But for an unannotated transcript-mutating tool that overlaps with several correction siblings, the description omits reversibility, scope of the precorrections, and sibling routing, leaving it only minimally complete.
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% across 2 parameters. The description clarifies dry_run ('previews without changing words'), adding real meaning beyond the bare boolean, but project_path is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of two params semantically opaque.
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?
The verb+resource pair ('Apply automatic transcript precorrections') signals a transcript-modifying action, but the term 'precorrections' is jargon that leaves the actual transformation ambiguous. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like correct_transcript_tool or apply_transcript_cleanup_tool, so an agent cannot confidently 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?
The clause 'dry_run previews without changing words' implies the default preview-first workflow and gives some usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over correct_transcript_tool or apply_transcript_cleanup_tool, nor any prerequisites, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.