List your currently available original videos.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_uploads"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that only currently available original videos are returned (excluding pending/deleted or derived assets). It says nothing about pagination behavior or result size, which matters for a list operation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant, and the scoping qualifier appears immediately after the verb.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential what and scope. The remaining gap is paging semantics, which is a meaningful but modest omission at this complexity level.
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?
Both parameters (limit with default 24, offset with default 0) have zero schema description coverage, so the description is the only place their meaning could be supplied and it mentions neither. An agent must guess that limit controls page size and offset controls paging.
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?
"List your currently available original videos" gives a specific verb (list) and a scoped resource (original videos that are currently available), which differentiates it implicitly from list_generations and list_upload_sessions. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so the distinction from those tools must be inferred.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. The phrase "currently available" hints at a filtered view, but the agent gets no help deciding between this and list_generations or list_upload_sessions.
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.