Measure WAV audio files to extract timing, pitch, loudness, and peak metrics for analyzing sound effects.
Measure any WAV: active_ms, attack_ms, decay_ms, pitch_hz_start/end, band_db, lufs, peak. Definitions in the cookbook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out_dir | No | ||
| sound_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It lists measured attributes but does not mention side effects, whether files are written (despite an out_dir parameter), or any operational constraints. The presence of out_dir suggests possible output-file behavior that is left unexplained.
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 extremely compact and front-loaded with the verb and resource. Each segment adds value, including the pointer to definitions in the cookbook, with no wasted words.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the input parameters or usage context. A new agent would not know what sound_id refers to or what out_dir does, making correct invocation uncertain without external documentation.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions neither sound_id nor out_dir. The phrase 'any WAV' does not clarify what sound_id represents or how the optional output directory is used.
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 identifies the tool's action ('Measure') and resource ('any WAV'), and lists specific output metrics. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but none of the siblings appear to offer the same measurement capability.
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 phrase 'Measure any WAV' implies the tool is for audio analysis, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.