media_import_inspectInspect a user-provided public social-video or Google Drive URL and return available import metadata without creating media.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public video URL. Supports social video links and Google Drive file links. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preview | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirmRightsToMediaRemoved value: -{
- "default": false,
- "description": "Set true only after the user confirms they own the media or have permission to import it.",
- "type": "boolean"
-}Input schema / properties / confirmRightsToMediaAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Set true only after the user confirms they own the media or have permission to import it.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'without creating media.' With the safety profile already structured, the description adds only the metadata-return context and no permission or failure-mode detail, so a mid-range score is warranted.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place by naming the scope and the read-only guarantee. No filler or redundant framing.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it summarizes them adequately as 'import metadata.' For a one-parameter, read-only idempotent tool the coverage is essentially complete, with only the sibling routing left implicit.
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 100% and the single 'url' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the social-video and Google Drive support. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('public social-video or Google Drive URL') and an explicit non-action ('without creating media') that separates it from the import siblings. An agent can tell this is a pre-flight metadata check rather than the import itself.
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?
'Without creating media' clearly signals the pre-flight use case, positioning it before media_import_url/media_import_scan_page. It stops short of naming those alternatives or stating an explicit condition, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.
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.