Add an audio media file to a podcast project as a track by providing track ID and file path; optionally set role, speaker, label, and project path.
Add an audio track to the project from a media file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | dialogue | |
| label | No | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | Yes | ||
| file_path | 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",
- "track_id",
- "file_path"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_id",
+ "file_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 burden for a mutation tool. It says the tool adds a track, but does not disclose permission requirements, what happens if the file path is invalid, whether the operation is reversible, or how project_path and default role affect behavior.
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 wasted words. Its concision is appropriate, though the brevity 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is not complete enough to guide safe and correct invocation.
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%, with six parameters and no descriptions in the schema. The description only indirectly suggests file_path and track_id; it says nothing about role, label, speaker, or project_path, so it does not compensate for the schema 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 and resource: 'Add an audio track to the project from a media file.' That is clear enough to distinguish it from generic project mutations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling track_add_empty_tool, which likely adds a track without a media file.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention track_add_empty_tool or track_set_media_tool, and it provides no prerequisites such as whether the project must already exist or whether the media file must be imported first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.