Step 1 of uploading a video. Returns { uploadId, uploadUrl }. PUT the raw video file bytes to uploadUrl (e.g. curl -X PUT --upload-file video.mp4 '<uploadUrl>' — no auth header needed, the URL is pre-signed). Then call viddler_videos_register with the uploadId to create the video record. Requires a videos:write token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Optional title to attach to the upload. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses necessary details: returns pre-signed URL (no auth needed for PUT), requires videos:write token, and implies idempotent nature. No annotations provided, but description covers key behaviors.
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 + token note are efficient and front-loaded with purpose. Includes a helpful code example without 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?
Completely explains the two-step upload process, return values, and requirements despite no output schema. Simple tool with one optional param, so description is fully adequate.
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?
Single optional parameter 'title' is described in schema (max length, optional). Description adds no extra info beyond schema. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.
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?
Explicitly states it's step 1 of uploading a video, returns uploadId and uploadUrl, and distinguishes from sibling tool viddler_videos_register (step 2).
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?
Provides clear context: use as first step, then call viddler_videos_register; includes curl example and token requirement. No ambiguity about when to use.
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.
