editorial_inspect_sourceDeliver one exact decoded source frame as JPEG and save its evidence receipt. Only that sampled frame is visually inspected; preserve the returned evidenceId and coverage.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| runId | Yes | runId (path). | |
| commandId | No | Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $defsAdded value: +{
+ "__schema0": {
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Input schema / properties / commandId / $refAdded value: +"#/$defs/__schema0"Input schema / properties / commandId / maxLengthRemoved value: -128Input schema / properties / commandId / minLengthRemoved value: -1Input schema / properties / commandId / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / properties / commandIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Retry identity. A call repeated with the same commandId returns the first result instead of acting twice.",
+ "maxLength": 128,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it saves an evidence receipt, returns a JPEG, inspects only that sampled frame, and says to preserve the returned evidenceId and coverage. It does not explain retry/idempotency behavior, though the schema's commandId description does.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the scoping constraint and the evidence fields to preserve.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry some return-value information; it names the JPEG artifact and the returned evidenceId and coverage. It still does not describe the full response shape or receipt format, but it covers the essential behavior for invoking the tool.
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 67%, with runId and top-level commandId partially documented and an example for the nested body. The description adds that a single exact decoded frame is involved, loosely mapping to the frame parameter, but it does not explain mediaId, the body-level commandId, or frame indexing beyond 'one exact sampled frame'.
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: deliver one exact decoded source frame as JPEG and save its evidence receipt. That is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as preview_frame, compare_frames, editorial_sample_motion, or editorial_inspect_audio/transcript.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the large sibling set. The statement that only the sampled frame is visually inspected implies a narrow scope, but it does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice over preview_frame, compare_frames, or editorial_sample_motion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.