check_uploadsFetch all files the user uploaded via the hosted upload page. Returns one mcp_upload_id per file — pass each to the appropriate tool (add_clips, add_article_media, etc.). Call this once after the user confirms they are done uploading; the token covers all files they dropped on the page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upload_token | Yes | The upload_token returned by upload_file(request_hosted_upload: true) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns one mcp_upload_id per file and that the token covers all files. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral traits like error handling or pagination are disclosed.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no extraneous words. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: action, returns, and usage guidance.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and return value. It could mention edge cases like empty uploads but is otherwise complete.
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 description covers 100% of the parameter, and the description adds context about the token's scope ('the token covers all files they dropped on the page'), which goes beyond the schema's definition.
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 verb 'Fetch all files' and the resource 'uploaded via hosted upload page', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns mcp_upload_id per file to be passed to other tools like add_clips and add_article_media.
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 says when to call ('once after the user confirms they are done uploading'), explains that the token covers all files, and instructs to pass each returned ID to the appropriate tool for further processing.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between remove_elements and remove_from_project(target='element'), which both remove elements from a clip. This duplication could cause an agent to misselect. Otherwise, tools like add_clips, add_elements, add_audio, and analyze_audio are well-differentiated.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_clips, create_project, get_clip, update_elements). There are no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even compound names like voiceover_batch and auto_sync fit the pattern. This makes the tool set predictable for an agent.
With 40 tools, the set is significantly larger than the 3-15 range that typically earns its place. While the domain of video creation is broad, several tools seem redundant (remove_elements vs remove_from_project) or narrowly scoped (get_design_guide, get_element_schema), inflating the count. The number feels heavy for the apparent scope.
The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: create, read, update, delete for projects, clips, elements, audio, articles, and clueprints. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to delete a voiceover (only mute via update_clips) and no folder management beyond listing. Overall, agents can accomplish full workflows with few workarounds.