Re-run transcript and timeline reconciliation for podcast tracks or projects. Preview alignment changes with the dry_run option before applying them.
Re-run transcript/timeline reconciliation; dry_run previews without applying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| end_sec | No | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | 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 the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that dry_run previews without applying, but says nothing about whether a real run mutates the transcript/timeline, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to prior reconciliation results.
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 the dry_run behavior appended. No wasted words, though it is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.
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?
For a mutation-capable, six-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description is under-specified. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but scope, prerequisites, and parameter meanings are all missing.
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 six parameters. The description only clarifies dry_run (preview vs apply); track_id, speaker, start_sec, end_sec, and project_path receive no explanation of meaning, scoping, or format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (re-run) plus resource (transcript/timeline reconciliation), which distinguishes it from the sibling reconciliation_status_tool by implying an action rather than a status query. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.
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 only guidance is that dry_run previews without applying. There is no when-to-use context, no mention of prerequisites, and no explicit routing versus reconciliation_status_tool or the alignment tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.