Extract the spoken-word transcript from a video URL. Works even when the video has no captions (server-side speech recognition). Supports TikTok, X/Twitter, TED, Twitch VODs, podcast hosts and 1000+ other sites. Max video length: 30 minutes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: it works even without captions using server-side speech recognition, supports a wide range of platforms, and imposes a 30-minute limit. However, it stops short of describing the return format, error handling for unsupported URLs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the no-captions capability and supported sites, and the length limit. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and free of wasteful 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?
For a tool with a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: defines the input, lists supported sources, and states a key constraint. It doesn't explain the output format or failure behavior, but the return value ('transcript') is largely implied by the tool's name and the stated purpose.
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 provides no description for the 'url' parameter (0% coverage). The tool description compensates by specifying that the URL must be a video URL and enumerates compatible platforms (TikTok, X/Twitter, TED, Twitch, podcasts). This gives meaningful guidance, though it doesn't detail URL formatting or what happens with invalid inputs.
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 extracts the spoken-word transcript from a video URL, using a specific verb ('Extract') and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_supported_platforms' by focusing on extraction rather than listing supported sites.
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 provides clear use context: it works when captions are unavailable via server-side speech recognition and supports many sites. It also notes the 30-minute max length, which implicitly sets when-not-to-use constraints. However, it doesn't name any alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one retrieves transcripts and the other lists platform support. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with clear, descriptive names: get_video_transcript and list_supported_platforms. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but appropriately scoped for a focused video-transcript service. However, the count feels slightly thin, as additional utility tools could enhance the offering.
The server covers the core workflow of fetching transcripts and checking platform support. Minor gaps exist, such as no option for transcript formats or handling videos exceeding the 30-minute limit, but these are not critical for the primary use case.