Start hosting the current podcast record room, blocking recording until all guests consent.
Host Start for the current record room (blocked until guests consent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the tool is blocked until guests consent, but does not explain side effects, host/guest authorization needs, whether recording actually begins, or other important behavior for a start operation.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence with no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the operation, though the phrasing remains cryptic rather than maximally clear.
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 start tool with no annotations and an undocumented optional parameter, the description is too thin. It notes the guest-consent block, but does not do enough to explain prerequisites, side effects, or how project_path affects the call.
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 is one optional parameter, project_path, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the bare schema and fails to compensate for the missing documentation.
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 description identifies a start operation on the current record room, but the phrase 'Host Start' is jargon and not a plainly stated verb+resource. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as record_stop_tool, record_pause_tool, or create_record_room_tool beyond the vague notion of starting a record room.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The parenthetical 'blocked until guests consent' is a prerequisite, not usage direction or an alternative-selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.