Search podcast transcripts for text and narrow results by track or speaker to find dialogue, topics, or edit points in multitrack projects.
Search the transcript for text, optionally scoped to a track or speaker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | 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 / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "query"
-]New value: +[
+ "query"
+]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 burden. The read-only nature is only weakly implied by 'Search', and it discloses nothing about matching semantics (case sensitivity, substring vs word match), result limits, ordering, or scope of the default search.
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; the verb and resource lead. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it actually conveys.
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, and the read-only search intent is conveyed. But with four parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully specify scope and matching behavior.
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%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps 'text' to query, 'track' to track_id, and 'speaker' to speaker, but omits project_path entirely and adds no format or accepted-value details for any parameter.
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 ('Search') and resource ('the transcript'), which is clear in isolation. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_transcript or find_replace_transcript_tool, so an agent cannot tell search-for-display from find-and-replace or full fetch without inferring.
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 phrase 'optionally scoped to a track or speaker' hints at scoping but gives no when-to-use context, no conditions for choosing this over get_transcript or find_replace_transcript_tool, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.