List enrolled speaker voiceprint profiles for a podcast project, so producers can identify speakers during multitrack transcription and editing.
List enrolled speaker voiceprint profiles.
| 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 bears the full disclosure burden. The verb 'List' does convey a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the existence of an output schema offloads return-shape concerns. However, nothing is said about scoping to the active project, pagination, or required enrollment state.
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 zero filler, which is appropriately sized for a trivial list operation. It is not padded or restated anywhere.
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?
The output schema covers return values, so that gap is excused, and the operation is simple enough that a terse description is nearly sufficient. What remains missing is project scoping behavior for project_path and any usage context versus the other speaker_* tools.
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?
The single parameter project_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It is entirely undocumented whether omitting it defaults to the current project or lists globally, which is the one semantic an agent actually needs here.
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 ('List') and a specific resource ('enrolled speaker voiceprint profiles'), so an agent can distinguish it from neighboring tools like speaker_enroll_tool or speaker_score_tool. It stops short of 5 because it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.
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 description states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite context. An agent gets no signal about whether a project must be loaded first or when to prefer this over speaker_score_tool or speaker_label_tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.