Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Vidova

by ai.vidova
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search the docs

search_docs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Vidova API signatures and behavior guides, plus sourced editing techniques, meme context and dated trend reference cards. For creative context, search a technique, format, reaction or intended effect; read the card for use/avoid guidance, pacing, example links and matching assets/docs. Reference cards refresh independently; heed their observation dates and stale notices. Returns bounded excerpts and ids for read_docs, versioned with this engine. Use before guessing an unfamiliar API and after an API/type error. No arbitrary repository or internet access. Coverage is selected APIs; no match is not proof an API does not exist.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "search_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesAPI symbol, behavior, editing technique, meme or trend context, e.g. clamp, Txt center underline, SkSL uniforms, frostedGlass.
projectIdYesThe project this call runs on without changing the open project. null (or leaving it out) uses the open project. wait_for_jobs takes the projectId of the calls that started the jobs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"API symbol or behavior, e.g. clamp, Txt center underline, SkSL uniforms, frostedGlass."New value: +"API symbol, behavior, editing technique, meme or trend context, e.g. clamp, Txt center underline, SkSL uniforms, frostedGlass."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real context beyond them: bounded excerpts plus ids, engine-versioned results, cards that refresh independently with observation dates and stale notices, and an explicit coverage caveat that no match is not proof an API is absent. That last point materially affects how an agent should interpret empty results.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with what is searchable, then usage triggers, then caveats; nearly every sentence carries information. A few phrases are compressed to the point of opacity ('versioned with this engine', 'reference cards refresh independently') and cost some clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description supplies what's needed: return shape (bounded excerpts and ids), the follow-up tool (read_docs), freshness semantics of cards, and the coverage limitation. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both query and projectId are already documented, including examples and the null/open-project behavior. The description restates the query content families but adds no syntactic or formatting guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a clear verb+resource ('Search Vidova API signatures and behavior guides') and enumerates the content families it covers (API docs, editing techniques, meme context, dated trend cards). It distinguishes itself from the read_docs sibling by saying it returns ids/excerpts rather than full cards, which no other search_* sibling covers.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: 'Use before guessing an unfamiliar API and after an API/type error', plus a creative-context path that routes to searching a technique/format/reaction and then reading the card. It names read_docs as the follow-up, but does not say when to prefer the other search_* siblings (search_effects, search_templates) over this one when queries overlap.

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

All Vidova toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources