Skip to main content
Glama

Shorti

Check a take

shorti_check_link
Read-only

A check link for a person's own video, and the summary they send back. No argument, or format (a format_id): a link at once — check_link (check_link_en for the English page), token, expires_at (24 h) and says — that the person opens on their phone to upload their own video and check it against that format. Nothing is read of theirs, written or queued, and you never see their video. Then call again with the token alone: waiting (ask again after poll_after_s) until the person taps «Send this result to the AI chat» («이 결과를 AI 대화에 보내기» on the Korean page) on their result, then shared with the summary they sent: fidelity with its interval and how many axes were measured (measured of of, weighted) — its value stays null with reason not_validated until its registered validity look passes, with followed (k of n directions repeated across formats that the video follows) in its place — up to three fixes at their moment (at_s, what_ko, how_ko, the hit video's public still; where a fix was drawn, its layers: the hits' still at still_url, its shapes and zone, the take's own shapes, each drawn value's evidence — hosts that draw show them in the check's view), what they broke and kept, and their result's link (link, link_en); each line in English beside the Korean where Shorti wrote one (what_en, how_en, broken_en, kept_en). A token this door did not sign, or one past its 24 h with nothing sent, is refused as handoff_invalid; a summary sent after the 24 h is still read. 증거가 붙은 관찰로 말하고, 원인은 검증된 것만. 닮은 정도는 조회수 예측이 아니다. — Speak in observations that carry their evidence, and name a cause only where one was verified; fidelity is not a forecast of views.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenNoThe token a previous call gave.
formatNoA format_id to check against.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds real behavioral context: 'Nothing is read of theirs, written or queued, and you never see their video,' the 24 h token lifetime, the `handoff_invalid` refusal for unsigned/expired tokens while a late-sent summary is still read, and the polling contract. These details are not derivable from the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The body is a dense, comma-spliced run-on that buries the state machine inside an enumeration of every return field. Since an output schema already exists, the long walkthrough of `says`, `measured`, `weighted`, `followed`, `layers`, `what_ko`, etc. is largely redundant and hurts parseability. Front-loading is weak – the actionable steps should lead.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The handoff/polling lifecycle is covered, which is the hard part, but the description spends its length re-listing output fields already carried by the output schema and omits the practical basics (permissions, what happens on a second expiry, rate limits). Adequate on flow, bloated where it does not need to be.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it clarifies the mutually exclusive calling modes (no argument vs. `format` on the first call, `token` alone on the second) and the 24 h validity of the token. That is meaningfully more than the raw field descriptions.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The opening fragment 'A check link for a person's own video, and the summary they send back' does identify the resource, but the elliptical phrasing makes the core action hard to extract on first read. It never names or differentiates itself from any sibling tool (shorti_video, shorti_format, etc.), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which tool to reach for.

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?

The two-phase flow is spelled out: call with no argument or a `format` to get a link, then call again with the `token` alone and poll while `waiting` (respecting `poll_after_s`) until `shared`. That is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or when *not* to use this tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources