通过视频URL提取字幕内容。
Args:
url (string): 视频URL(必填)
is_southeast_asia (boolean): 是否东南亚视频，默认false
Returns:
object: {code(string): 状态码, message(string): 提示信息, success(boolean): 是否成功, data(string): 字幕内容}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | 视频URL(必填) | |
| is_southeast_asia | No | 是否东南亚视频，默认false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return envelope (code, message, success, data) since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior for an invalid/unsupported URL.
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?
Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a standard Args/Returns layout. Slightly redundant in echoing the schema, but appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.
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?
The fabricated Returns section compensates for the absent output schema, and both params are covered. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks sufficient context to know when this tool applies versus the video_search family.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The Args block merely restates them verbatim, adding no syntax, format, or URL-validation detail beyond the structured fields.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: extract subtitle/caption content from a video URL. This is clearly distinguishable from all siblings (search/list/analysis tools), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when an alternative tool might be preferable. The agent must infer that this is the caption-extraction entry point.
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.