Inspect SRT subtitle text for free.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"subtitle_text": "<subtitle_text>"
},
"name": "diagnose_srt"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | ||
| subtitle_text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe, non-mutating operation, so safety needs no restating. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it doesn't say what is inspected, what kinds of problems are surfaced, whether output is a report or a score, or any limits (the 250k character cap in the schema is unexplained).
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?
It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the trailing 'for free' is marketing noise that conveys no actionable information to an agent. The single sentence is too thin rather than too long.
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?
With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral detail, the description leaves the agent without a picture of what a call returns or what the undocumented filename parameter does. For a two-parameter diagnostic tool with a repair sibling, substantially more context is warranted.
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 coverage is 0%, so two parameters, including the entirely undocumented 'filename' and the 250,000-character limit on 'subtitle_text', are explained nowhere. The description only loosely implies that subtitle text is the input and never mentions filename or the size constraint it would need to compensate for.
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 verb 'Inspect' plus the resource 'SRT subtitle text' identifies the domain and distinguishes it from diagnose_csv and diagnose_ics by filename. However, it never clarifies what 'diagnose' actually yields (errors? formatting issues? timing?) or how it differs from repair_srt, leaving the core operation vague.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to repair_srt, which is the obvious companion tool in the sibling list. The agent must guess whether to diagnose before repairing or whether diagnose_srt is a standalone validator.
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.