Check stem freshness and flag stale dialogue balance measurements for a podcast project.
Report stem freshness and whether dialogue balance measurements are stale.
| 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. 'Report' implies a read-only inspection, but the description never states that it is non-mutating, says nothing about permissions or cost, and gives no hint of how the staleness judgement is computed.
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; every clause carries content. It is appropriately sized for a status read, though the wording is cryptic enough that brevity comes at a cost to clarity.
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 needn't be explained, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and dozens of competing status tools, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to confidently select and call it.
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% and the description adds nothing about the single optional, nullable project_path parameter — it doesn't say whether omitting it defaults to some active project or errors. The parameter name is self-describing, which softens the gap only slightly.
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?
Names a verb ('Report') and two specific facets (stem freshness, dialogue balance staleness), so the general intent is discernible. However, the domain jargon is opaque and there is no differentiation from the many sibling status tools (align_status_tool, reconciliation_status_tool, transcript_refine_status_tool), leaving the agent unsure how this status differs from the others.
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 guidance is given. It is not stated whether this is a pre-render check, a diagnostic run after edits, or something to poll, nor are any prerequisite operations or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.