Read audio file metadata such as format, duration, and tags without decoding the full recording, so you can inspect and route stems before separation or cleanup.
Read file metadata without decoding the whole recording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audio_path | Yes | Absolute or caller-relative local audio file path. |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that: it avoids full decode, which signals speed and low resource cost. It does not say what happens on an unreadable/corrupt file or what metadata is returned, so the added value is modest.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant against the name or the schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the safety annotations cover the rest. However, for a tool whose whole value is 'what metadata do I get', the description never hints at the fields produced (duration, sample rate, channels, format), leaving the agent to open the output schema to judge fitness.
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?
Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage), including the absolute-vs-relative path distinction. The description adds nothing about audio_path, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read file metadata') plus a scoping qualifier ('without decoding the whole recording') that implicitly separates it from decoding-heavy siblings like analyze_audio or verify_audio. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than a 5.
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 'without decoding the whole recording' implies this is the cheap, lightweight inspection step, but the description never says when to pick it over verify_audio or analyze_audio, nor any precondition (e.g., file must exist locally). Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.