Transcribe or analyze audio files by asking specific questions. Use a multimodal model to extract insights from any audio file via path, URL, or base64 data.
Analyze or transcribe an audio file using a multimodal model
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | ||
| question | No | Question or instruction about the audio (default: transcribe) | |
| audio_path | Yes | File path, URL, or data URL (base64-encoded audio) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral insight beyond stating 'analyze or transcribe'. It does not disclose limitations like supported formats, file sizes, or any side effects, but there is no contradiction with annotations.
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 words. It effectively communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
The description does not explain the return format or output structure, and no output schema is provided. It also omits details about supported audio formats, maximum file size, or any behavioral constraints. Given the tool's complexity, this is a significant gap.
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 description adds value for the 'question' parameter by noting an optional instruction with a default of 'transcribe', which is beyond the schema. However, the 'model' parameter lacks any description in the schema and is not addressed in the description. With 67% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.
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: analyzing or transcribing an audio file. It specifies the verb ('analyze or transcribe') and the resource ('audio file'), and the name 'analyze_audio' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_image' and 'analyze_video'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where transcription vs. analysis is appropriate, or exclusions. The sibling list includes 'generate_audio' but no context for choosing between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.