get_shortsRetrieve all generated short clips for a completed request. Provide a request ID, or omit it to see your recent requests and pick one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestId | No | The request ID from create_short (24-char hex). Omit to see your recent requests. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the request must be completed and that omitting the ID lists recent requests, but it does not mention error handling, empty results, or whether it is read-only. This is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
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?
Given the simple tool (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key usage scenario and both modes of invocation. It could mention return format or error cases, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.
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?
The schema already provides a detailed description for requestId (24-char hex from create_short, omit to see recent requests). The description adds the 'completed request' context, which is meaningful extra semantics about when the parameter is valid. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all generated short clips'), and scopes it to 'a completed request'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_status (which retrieves status) and create_short (which creates).
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?
It clearly states when to use the tool: to retrieve clips for a completed request, and provides two usage modes (provide a request ID or omit it to browse recent requests). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and actionable.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create, delete, status, shorts retrieval, and separate list tools for each asset type (game videos, meme hooks, music, templates, requests). No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_short, list_music, get_status). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a clipping service: it covers creation, status, retrieval, deletion, request listing, and asset selection. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of short creation: create, check status, retrieve results, and delete. Additionally, all necessary asset list tools are present to support creation, leaving no obvious gaps.