Fetch the full record for one video: status, playback id, duration, moderation, storage state, protection. Poll this after create_upload until muxPlaybackId is no longer 'pending'.
| 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses polling behavior and that muxPlaybackId may be pending, but lacks details on error handling, authorization, rate limits, or side effects. Provides moderate transparency.
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, no filler. First sentence lists fields, second provides usage guidance. Both earn their 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 single parameter, no output schema, and polling nuance, description covers core functionality and usage. Missing error scenarios, but adequate for a simple fetch 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% with one parameter described as 'Video id or uniqueId.' Description adds minor value by clarifying it can be an ID or uniqueId, but does not elaborate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states 'Fetch the full record for one video' and lists specific fields (status, playback id, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like viddler_videos_list and viddler_videos_create_upload by specifying singular record retrieval and polling usage.
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?
Explicitly recommends polling after create_upload until muxPlaybackId is no longer 'pending', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives, but the polling guidance is strong.
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.
