檢查 YouTube 章節時間碼（0:00 起、至少 3 段、每段 10 秒）與標題、說明、標籤、主題標籤數量上限。
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": "youtube_seo_check"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| chapters | No | ||
| duration | No | ||
| description | 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 behavioral burden. It never says whether the tool only reads/validates or mutates, what a result looks like, error handling, or whether auth/API access is needed. '檢查' weakly implies a read-only lint, but that is inference, not disclosure.
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?
A single dense sentence with the check rules parenthetically front-loaded; no filler. It is efficient, though cramming chapters plus four metadata limits into one clause slightly blurs the structure.
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?
Five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description supplies chapter validation thresholds but leaves input formats, the duration parameter, and the shape of the returned findings unspecified — insufficient for an agent to call the tool reliably.
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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully encodes chapter rules (must start at 0:00, at least 3 segments, 10 seconds each) and mentions title/description/tags/hashtag limits, but never specifies the expected input format (e.g., multiline text vs. array) and entirely omits the 'duration' parameter and the concrete numeric limits.
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 (檢查/check) and resource (YouTube 章節時間碼 plus 標題、說明、標籤、主題標籤), giving a clear picture of what is validated. No sibling tool touches YouTube, so differentiation is moot; it only lacks explicit scope boundaries for the check.
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?
Usage is implied — validate a video's chapters and metadata length limits, presumably before publishing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the context.
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.