Check processing status of a short creation 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 the read-only nature via 'Check' and the optional behavior of listing recent requests. It could mention output details but is adequate for a status check.
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, both purposeful: the first states the action, the second gives usage instructions. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and usage adequately, though it doesn't describe the response format. Given the low complexity, 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already fully describes requestId including the pattern and the omit behavior. The description adds minimal new meaning ('pick one') beyond what is already in the schema.
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 'Check' and identifies the resource as 'processing status of a short creation request'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_short, delete_request, and get_shorts.
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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: provide a request ID or omit it to see recent requests. It implies the workflow but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
