approve_editor_runExplicitly approve the exact paid quote currently waiting on one of your Editor runs. Requires approved=true and the matching quote_id; stale or changed projects fail closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| approved | Yes | ||
| quote_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description's mention of 'stale or changed projects fail closed' adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like charging or starting the run, which would be valuable for a mutation tool.
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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It efficiently packs core purpose, requirements, and failure mode without redundancy, making it easy to parse.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the immediate condition (qualifying quote) but omits the consequences of approval (e.g., execution start, billing). The 'fail closed' note helps, but the overall picture is incomplete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references 'approved' and 'quote_id' but doesn't explicitly define 'run_id' or elaborate on parameter formats/values. The mapping is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to guess how to properly fill each field.
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 uses a specific verb ('approve') and clearly identifies the resource ('exact paid quote currently waiting on one of your Editor runs'). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_editor_run and get_editor_run by focusing on the approval action.
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?
It implies usage when there's a paid quote waiting on an Editor run, providing clear context. It also states requirements (approved=true, matching quote_id), but it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic ground: apply_iphone_realism and apply_ugc both describe casual phone-shot looks, upload_media and upload_reference_asset both accept uploads, and analyze_video overlaps heavily with analyze_video_report. The many apply_* style tools are essentially one tool parameterized by style, so agents can easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as generate_image, list_my_videos, get_editor_run, and upscale_video. A few outliers like voice, talking_avatar_video, and video_to_prompt do not use the same verb-first convention, but they are still readable and do not create significant confusion.
At 55 tools, the surface is far beyond what is appropriate for an MCP server; many of these be collapsed or parameterized, especially the 10 apply_* style wrappers and several overlapping upload/status helpers. Even for a broad media platform, this scale forces a huge context window and makes selecting the right tool impractical.
The surface covers generation, media display, video analysis, and Editor workflows well, but there are obvious gaps in library lifecycle management: move_asset and create_folder are referenced in tool descriptions without being exposed, and there is no clean way to delete or reorganize media assets. Agents following the descriptions will try to call tools that do not exist.