Publishes a render with stems and optional tagged MP3, MIDI, report, and delivery ZIP. Validates inputs and logs updates for rollback, without certifying listening quality.
Validate and publish a current render with stems, optional tagged MP3, MIDI, report and delivery ZIP. Journals updates for rollback. Does not certify listening quality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mp3 | No | ||
| tags | Yes | ||
| job_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| artwork_asset_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that updates are journaled for rollback and explicitly states it does not certify listening quality. However, it does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing deliveries, required permissions, or the exact nature of the validation failures.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and deliverables. No redundant phrasing or filler.
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 five parameters, a nested tags object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, return values, or failure modes. The agent would need to rely heavily on schema constraints without understanding the business logic behind each field.
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%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema. It mentions 'optional tagged MP3' but does not explain the tags object fields (title, album, genre, etc.) or the purpose of project_id, job_id, artwork_asset_id, or mp3. An agent cannot determine how to fill these parameters correctly from the description alone.
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 action (validate and publish) on a specific resource (current render) and enumerates the deliverables (stems, optional tagged MP3, MIDI, report, delivery ZIP). It distinguishes itself from batch_delivery_publish by focusing on a single render, even though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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 a caveat about not certifying listening quality but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_delivery_publish or delivery_recover. The usage context is implied from the name and the single-delivery nature, but the agent must infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.