Suppress transcript words spoken by other speakers on home tracks, then apply transcript gate to mute unwanted audio in a podcast project.
Suppress transcript words from other speakers on home tracks; use apply_transcript_gate_tool to mute audio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | 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 / 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 disclosure burden. It says what will be suppressed (transcript words, not audio) but never mentions that dry_run defaults to true, whether changes are reversible, what permissions or prior transcript state are needed, or what a run actually alters.
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 sentence with the core action front-loaded and the sibling reference second; every clause earns its place. No filler or restated name.
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 gate/suppression operation with zero annotation coverage and undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but the missing explanation of dry_run, scope selection, and side effects leaves the agent unable to invoke it confidently.
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% across three parameters, and the description does not compensate: track_id, project_path, and especially dry_run (default true) are never explained. 'Home tracks' loosely hints at track_id semantics, but the agent gets no guidance on what dry_run does or which track is targeted.
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 and resource: suppress transcript words from other speakers on home tracks. It also contrasts itself with apply_transcript_gate_tool, so an agent can distinguish the transcript-level operation from the audio-muting one. The only ambiguity is the term 'home tracks', which is not defined here.
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?
It explicitly names apply_transcript_gate_tool as the route for muting audio, which routes the agent between two similar-sounding suppression tools. It stops short of stating when-not to use this one (e.g. prerequisites, whether transcript must exist first), so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.