Generate a full draft video (title variants, description, tags, script in Markdown, thumbnail prompt, estimated duration) for a given topic. Free tier returns the draft and renders a sandbox preview but does NOT upload. Pro/Studio drafts are eligible for youtube_upload_video.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | The video topic | |
| titleHint | No | ||
| durationSec | No | Target duration in seconds (30–1200) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that free tier returns only a draft and sandbox preview, and Pro/Studio drafts are upload-eligible. However, it does not mention side effects like idempotency, whether existing drafts are overwritten, or rate limits, leaving moderate gaps.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first lists all generated components, the second explains tier-specific behavior. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or verbosity.
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 description covers core functionality and tier differences but omits details on the return format (e.g., structure of each component) and whether the draft is persisted or transient. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
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 67% (2 of 3 params described). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema. The titleHint parameter lacks a schema description and the tool description does not clarify it, so the agent must infer its purpose.
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 explicitly states the tool generates a full draft video with specific components (title variants, description, tags, Markdown script, thumbnail prompt, estimated duration). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool youtube_upload_video by noting tier-based upload eligibility.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (generating a draft) and notes that free tier does not upload, while Pro/Studio drafts can be uploaded via youtube_upload_video. This implicitly guides the agent on follow-up actions, though explicit when-not-to-use scenarios are absent.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes and clear descriptions, but there is some potential confusion among the four Polymarket-related tools (categorize, edge, signals, top_traders) and among the multiple 'alya_' prefixed tools that query different data sources.
Naming patterns are mixed: some tools use 'alya_' prefix, others use action-based names like 'batch_calibrate' or 'image_gen', and YouTube tools all start with 'youtube_'. The inconsistency in prefixes and verb styles makes the set less predictable.
32 tools is high for an MCP server, and they span a wide, unrelated set of domains (Polymarket, YouTube, gemology, weather, earthquakes, health, celebrity, etc.), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.
Each domain has incomplete coverage: Polymarket lacks trade execution, YouTube automation depends on external OAuth, health tools only offer diagnosis and drug interactions without follow-up, and other domains have minimal tooling. The server feels like a collection of one-off features rather than a coherent surface.