Retrieve ready-to-use code examples for common LiquidSoap tasks like crossfade, fallback, and HLS output. Find the exact script to implement the functionality you need.
Get code examples for common LiquidSoap tasks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | Task to get an example for (e.g., 'crossfade', 'fallback', 'normalize', 'hls-output', 'harbor', 'cron', 'blank-detection', 'metadata', 'encoding-formats') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The phrase 'Get code examples' implies a safe, read-only operation, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, required permissions, or rate limits—though none are likely for such a tool.
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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is efficiently structured and immediately conveys the core functionality.
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 the simplicity of the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and primary input. It does not need extensive additional context, though a note on response format could marginally improve completeness.
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 single parameter 'task' is documented with a description listing example values (e.g., 'crossfade', 'fallback'), which helps the agent understand what to pass. However, it does not specify whether the input must be one of these exact strings or if other values are accepted, leaving some ambiguity.
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 tool's purpose: retrieving code examples for common LiquidSoap tasks. It uses a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_changelog or get_documentation.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks statements like 'use this when...' or 'if you need...', leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.