Exports only the sequence audio to a WAV or custom preset, so you can deliver audio stems without rendering video.
Export only the sequence audio (WAV 48 kHz 16-bit by default, or another audio preset)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | No | ||
| preset | No | ||
| outputPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default codec/format (WAV 48 kHz 16-bit) and that an alternate audio preset is accepted, but says nothing about overwriting an existing file at outputPath, whether the export is blocking, or what happens on failure.
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?
A single compact sentence with the scope constraint and default format front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is short to the point of under-specification rather than bloated.
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?
No output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description should cover the return value (file path? job id?) and the range semantics. It covers neither, leaving an agent able to guess the call shape but not the effect or result.
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, yet it only gestures at 'preset' and omits outputPath entirely. The 'range' enum (entire/inOut) is never explained, leaving a required path and a scope selector ambiguous.
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?
States a specific verb (Export) and resource (sequence audio) and emphasizes 'only', which distinguishes it from siblings like export_sequence, export_omf, and export_frame. It does not name any of those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from the word 'only'.
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?
Usage is implied ('only the sequence audio') rather than stated: there is no explicit 'use this when you want audio-only output, use export_sequence for full media' contrast against a crowded export sibling set. An agent can infer the condition but must do the routing work itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.