get_v1_video_detailsVideo Details Group: Video. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_v1_video_details"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gl | No | ||
| hl | No | ||
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only mentions billing and grouping; it does not explain what data is returned, whether any side effects exist, or any operational characteristics. This is a complete lack of behavioral transparency.
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 short (two clauses) but it wastes the limited space on billing and grouping rather than conveying purpose. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness. The structure does not front-load useful information.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and when to use it. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with only the tool name and parameter examples. This is completely inadequate for a tool with three parameters and sibling tools that need differentiation.
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 0% and the description does not mention any of the parameters (gl, hl, id). The input schema provides examples but no descriptions. The description adds no meaning to the parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 'Video Details Group: Video. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' merely restates the title 'Video Details' and provides billing info. It does not specify what the tool does or what details it returns, though the tool name suggests getting video details. This is a tautology rather than a functional description.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_v2_video_details or get_v1_video_comments. The only context provided is billing per call, which does not help with selection. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.