AssemblyAI MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the service provider ('AssemblyAI') but does not describe key behaviors such as authentication needs, rate limits, processing time, error handling, or what the transcription output looks like (e.g., text format, confidence scores). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Transcribe audio from a local file path') and includes essential context ('using AssemblyAI'). There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the complexity (2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, processing), output format, and detailed usage guidelines. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to help an agent invoke the tool correctly, but 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('filePath' and 'options') with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'options' sub-parameters (e.g., what 'speaker_labels' does) or file format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Transcribe audio') and resource ('from a local file path'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'transcribe_url' which handles URLs instead of local files. It also specifies the service provider ('using AssemblyAI'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'local file path', suggesting this tool is for local files versus alternatives like 'transcribe_url'. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus siblings like 'submit_transcription' or 'get_transcript', leaving some ambiguity about the workflow or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.