Add an empty silent placeholder track to a podcast project by track ID, with optional role, label, speaker, and project path settings.
Add an empty (silent placeholder) track to the project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | dialogue | |
| label | No | ||
| speaker | No | ||
| track_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No |
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"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_id"
+]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 conveys only that the track is empty/silent; it does not say whether this mutates a persisted project, requires an open session, what a duplicate track_id does, or what the tool returns.
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 no waste. It is well structured, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined economy.
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?
With zero annotation coverage, 0% schema description coverage, five parameters and no output schema, the one-line description is not sufficient to call the tool correctly. It omits required-parameter semantics, defaults behavior, and return/effect information.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter information in the description. The required track_id is especially counterintuitive for a tool that adds a track, and 'role', 'label', 'speaker' and 'project_path' are entirely unexplained, so the description compensates for nothing.
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 ... track') and qualifies it as 'empty (silent placeholder)', which usefully distinguishes it from the sibling track_add and track_set_media_tool. However it never names those alternatives explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference from the name.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must guess that this is for creating a placeholder lane versus importing media via track_add.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.