Compare speaker identities across tracks in a Podcast MCP time window to identify who speaks and verify multitrack alignment.
Compare speaker identity across tracks in a time window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_sec | Yes | ||
| start_sec | Yes | ||
| 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",
- "start_sec",
- "end_sec"
-]New value: +[
+ "start_sec",
+ "end_sec"
+]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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions or preconditions apply, how tracks are selected, or what kind of comparison result is produced.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, its brevity comes at the cost of needed detail, so it is structurally efficient but under-informative for the tool's complexity.
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 the description is still incomplete for a three-parameter tool with no annotations. It omits parameter meanings, usage conditions, and behavioral context that an agent would need to invoke it reliably.
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% for three parameters, and the description only loosely maps 'time window' to start_sec and end_sec. It says nothing about project_path, units, or whether start_sec/end_sec are inclusive, leaving a significant semantic 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?
The description states a specific verb (Compare), resource (speaker identity), and scope (across tracks in a time window), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as speaker_compare_pair_tool, speaker_score_tool, or speaker_attribute_tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'in a time window' only implies a scope condition and does not tell the agent when this comparison is the right operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.