Set the expected number of speakers for a podcast project so transcription and speaker detection match the actual voices present.
Set the expected number of speakers in the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No | ||
| expected_speaker_count | Yes |
| 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",
- "expected_speaker_count"
-]New value: +[
+ "expected_speaker_count"
+]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. It does not disclose whether setting the count overwrites prior values, what project scope applies, permissions required, or side effects on existing speaker assignments.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. However, its terseness contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail.
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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify project scope, the optional project_path, and mutation effects; it does not.
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%, so both parameters rely on the description. It only implies meaning for expected_speaker_count and says nothing about the optional project_path parameter or its default behavior.
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: set the expected speaker count in the project. It is clear enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related speaker tools like speaker_label_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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer that it is for configuring speaker count before transcription or alignment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.