Check whether a call recording is active, how long it has run, and recent per-side sound levels; -120 dB indicates no audio is captured on that side.
Whether a recording is in progress, for how long, and the recent sound levels of each side (-120 dB on the other side means no sound is being captured).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully explains what is returned and interprets the -120 dB value as no captured sound, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe auth/rate-limit behavior.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core status information and uses a parenthetical only where it adds interpretive value.
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 a zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential query outcome and explains the most ambiguous value (dB level meaning). It could be slightly more complete by stating that it is a read-only check or when it is appropriate to call.
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 tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline for a 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and no misleading parameter context is present.
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 resource and the information returned: whether recording is in progress, its duration, and recent per-side sound levels. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like start_recording or get_transcript, though it does not explicitly name an 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?
Usage is implied: checking live recording state and levels. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus list_recordings or stop_recording, nor does it mention prerequisites such as an active recording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.