Sync MCP Server

Official

by synchronicity-labs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

read audio preparation

audio-trims_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the status of an audio trim by ID and poll it until processing completes or fails, returning the resulting asset ID, actual duration, error code, and retry delay.

Instructions

Read one audio trim by the id audio-trims_create returned, to follow it until it ends; jobs_get and jobs_wait do not read audio trims. Returns its status; once completed, the assetId (the same value as this id) and actual durationSeconds of the new shortened audio asset, both null before; once failed, its errorCode; and retryAfterMs, the wait before the next read.

While it is queued or processing, call again after retryAfterMs milliseconds; never create another trim. When completed, use the new assetId and its actual duration in place of the original audio. If it failed, tell the user the errorCode; another trim needs an explicit new attempt with audio-trims_create. An API error returns {error: {message, status, code when given}} instead. It never starts video generation or spends credits.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The id that audio-trims_create returned (a UUID). Poll with this same id until the trim is completed or failed.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.4Nov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Audio trim id from audio-trims_create."New value: +"The id that audio-trims_create returned (a UUID). Poll with this same id until the trim is completed or failed."

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / id / description
```
Added value: +"Audio trim id from audio-trims_create."
```
Addedv0.1.5Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the retryAfterMs pacing contract, the null-before-completion field semantics, the errorCode on failure, the {error: {message, status, code}} shape for API errors, and that it never starts video generation or spends credits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling exclusion, then a procedural paragraph that maps one-to-one onto agent decisions. Some return-field enumeration duplicates the output schema and could be trimmed, but every sentence carries an actionable instruction rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter async polling tool with an output schema, the description covers origin of the id, polling cadence, terminal states, failure handling, error envelope, and side-effect boundaries. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and act on the result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the id semantics are already documented; the description reinforces rather than adds new syntax. It does add meaningful usage semantics for the parameter — reuse the same id across polls until completed or failed — which is slightly more than the schema's own wording.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one audio trim") plus the id provenance, and explicitly rules out sibling tools: "jobs_get and jobs_wait do not read audio trims." An agent can distinguish it from audio-trims_create and the generic jobs pollers without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use behavior: poll again after retryAfterMs while queued/processing, never create another trim, and on failure escalate to an explicit new audio-trims_create attempt. It also names the alternatives (jobs_get, jobs_wait) and states what to do with each outcome, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server