@jam-jam/convert-mcp

Stem separation: availability, limits and quota

jj_stems_capabilities

Check stem separation availability before running it: confirms supported models, file formats, duration and upload limits, result retention, and remaining quota with reset time. Costs no quota.

Instructions

Reports whether stem separation is available right now (GET /stem-tool/capabilities), the models this account may use ("fast" and "quality"), the file formats ("mp3", "flac"), the maximum duration and upload size, how long results are kept, and the remaining quota with its reset time (quota.fast and quota.quality, resetsAt in epoch milliseconds, UTC). Call it before jj_stems_separate. Costs no quota (only the read rate limit, 240 per minute). An API key must belong to a Premium account.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jj_stems_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description assumes the full disclosure burden and mostly discharges it: it declares the call is free of quota cost, subject only to a read rate limit of 240/minute, and that the API key must belong to a Premium account. It also explains the resolution of the returned time value (epoch milliseconds, UTC), which is the kind of detail that prevents misreading results.

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 purpose and limited to three sentences, with no filler or restatement of the title. The first sentence is dense with parenthetical field names and could be split for easier scanning, but every clause carries operational information rather than padding.

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 zero-parameter, non-destructive availability check with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, the cost and rate-limit profile, the authentication prerequisite, and the ordering relative to the separation call. No material gap remains that would cause a wrong or failed invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-argument meaning to add and the empty schema is fully consistent with the description. The description instead spends its budget describing the response fields, which is the right use of prose for a parameterless probe; nothing about invocation is left ambiguous.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource statement: it reports stem-separation availability and the exact diagnostic payload (models, formats, duration/size limits, retention, remaining quota with reset time). The endpoint reference (GET /stem-tool/capabilities) and the field paths (`quota.fast`, `quota.quality`, `resetsAt`) anchor it far beyond the title, and it is unmistakably the capability probe rather than the job-submitting sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Call it before jj_stems_separate" gives an explicit, actionable trigger and names the tool it gates, which is exactly what an agent needs to sequence the two calls. It stops short of stating when this check can be skipped (e.g., once availability is already known) or naming the analogous capability probes for other features, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not policy.

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