Return view counts and per-view records for a video: total views, remaining/available views, and the viewer log. The core 'who watched' proof-of-viewing data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | Yes | Video id or uniqueId. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as non-destructiveness, rate limits, or data volume. The mention of 'remaining/available views' hints at a quota but is unclear.
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?
The description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.
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 single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the main data points returned (total views, remaining/available views, viewer log). It could be more detailed on return structure or pagination, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple analytics tool.
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 description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states for the parameter 'video_id'. The baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
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 clearly states the tool returns view counts and per-view records for a video, listing specific data (total views, remaining/available views, viewer log). It distinguishes from sibling tools like viddler_analytics_account_usage by focusing on per-video analytics.
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 implies this tool is useful for retrieving view analytics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are stated.
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 specific action on a distinct resource (access, analytics, feedback, videos). There is no overlap; for example, password protection and custom URL are clearly separate access tools.
All tools follow the pattern `viddler_<category>_<verb>_<noun>` with consistent snake_case. Categories are logical (access, analytics, feedback, videos) and verbs are appropriately descriptive (remove, set, get, list, create, etc.).
12 tools is a reasonable number for a video management server. The set is scoped to core operations, not bloated. A few more could be added (e.g., delete), but the count is appropriate for the domain.
The tool set covers upload, registration, retrieval, listing, and metadata updates, but lacks a delete video tool. This is a notable gap for a video management server. Other missing operations like trash or restore are not critical, but delete is a basic lifecycle operation.
