Insert a named marker into the active recording's timeline to flag specific moments for later reference.
Drops a named marker into the active recording's timeline.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "record_marker"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.357v3.0.341v3.0.336Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims a 'named marker' but the input schema has no parameter for the name, creating a contradiction. Additionally, there are no annotations, so the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as side effects or requirements (e.g., active recording must exist).
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 short sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information about the missing name parameter and usage context, making it insufficient.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a misleading description, the tool is severely under-described. The agent cannot infer prerequisites, return value, or behavior when no recording is active.
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 input schema has zero parameters and is trivially 100% covered, but the description implies a name parameter that does not exist, misleading the agent about how to invoke the tool.
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 'drops a named marker into the active recording's timeline,' which is a clear verb+resource, but the input schema has no parameters, contradicting the notion of a 'named' marker. This inconsistency makes the purpose less clear.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or context for using the marker tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.