Convert local JSON transcripts with word timestamps into SRT or WebVTT files, creating one caption per timed word to preserve source alignment.
Convert a local JSON transcript with word timestamps into SRT or WebVTT. Writes one caption per timed word to preserve source alignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | Yes | ||
| filename | Yes | ||
| input_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: the tool writes a file rather than returning captions, and it emits one caption per timed word to preserve source alignment. It stops short of saying where the file is written, whether an existing file is overwritten, or how malformed input is handled, which are material gaps for a write operation.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral detail. Every clause adds information an agent could act on.
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?
For a three-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-less conversion tool, the description covers the input contract, output formats, and caption granularity adequately. It leaves the output-file destination and overwrite semantics unstated, which is the largest remaining gap given nothing else documents them.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: 'local JSON transcript with word timestamps' explains input_path, and 'SRT or WebVTT' maps to the format enum. The filename parameter is left unexplained — no indication whether an extension should be supplied, whether directories are allowed, or where it resolves relative to.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Convert a local JSON transcript with word timestamps into SRT or WebVTT') plus the output granularity, which is far more informative than the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with adjacent siblings such as transcribe_audio or generate_speech_with_timestamps, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 only usage signal is the precondition baked into the sentence: the input must be a local JSON transcript containing word timestamps. There is no statement of when to pick this over transcribe_audio/align_audio_to_text, no note on what happens if the transcript lacks word timings, and no guidance on choosing SRT versus VTT beyond the enum.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.