transcribe_audioTranscribe pending WhatsApp audio messages by ID, waiting up to about 90 seconds for results.
Transcreve na hora áudios que ainda não foram transcritos. Espera até ~1,5 min pelo resultado.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Números dos áudios, como em [áudio #123 · ainda não transcrito]. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: it processes immediately and waits up to about 1.5 minutes for the result. It does not describe timeout or failure behavior, but the latency disclosure is valuable.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted wording. The eligibility condition and wait time are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and an important latency characteristic. It could mention timeout or already-transcribed handling, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.
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 schema fully documents the single ids parameter and even shows the expected [áudio #123 · ainda não transcrito] format. The description reinforces that the audios must be untranscribed but adds no syntax or selection detail beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb and resource: it transcribes audio files that have not yet been transcribed. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_chats or read_document, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative tool.
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?
It gives a clear eligibility condition: use this for audios that are still untranscribed. It does not name an alternative or explain what to do when an audio is already transcribed, so the routing guidance is present but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.