Statonic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's logic ('calculates exact audio positioning so the drop hits at the transition point') and output behavior ('returns audios where...'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool that filters and returns data.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value by explaining functionality, output, and usage context, though it could be slightly more streamlined by combining some ideas.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the tool's purpose and usage well, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which would enhance completeness for a filtering tool.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameters relate to timing requirements, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('find audio tracks') and resources ('audio tracks suitable for a video project'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on audio selection based on timing requirements, unlike tools like 'get_clips_by_category' or 'search_statonic_library' which handle different resources or criteria.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('when creating projects that need audio synced to clip transitions'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'search_statonic_library' which might handle broader audio searches.

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