Get the status and progress of a specific migration.
Returns detailed status including videos processed, links created,
and any errors. Does NOT modify any data.
Common errors:
- Migration not found: check the ID or use `youfiliate_list_migrations`.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description explicitly says 'Does NOT modify any data' which is redundant but reinforces. It adds value by disclosing the return contents (videos processed, links created, errors) and a common error (not found) with resolution guidance, going beyond the annotations.
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 concise: two sentences plus a bullet for common errors. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately specifies safety ('Does NOT modify any data'). Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple (read-only status check) with good annotations and a clear output schema. The description covers what data is returned, explicitly notes non-mutating behavior, and handles the common error case. This is complete for the tool's complexity.
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 clear descriptions for both 'id' (Migration UUID) and 'response_format' (markdown or json), so the description need not repeat them. However, the description itself does not mention parameter meanings; it only says 'specific migration', which hints at the id parameter. Given the schema's strong coverage, a baseline of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the status and progress of a specific migration.' It identifies the resource (migration), the action (get status), and the scope (specific migration by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like youfiliate_list_migrations (list all migrations) and youfiliate_preview_migration (preview).
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 implies usage when you have a migration ID and need status. It provides a helpful alternative in the error case: 'use `youfiliate_list_migrations`'. However, it does not explicitly state 'when to use' vs. 'when not to use' beyond this troubleshooting hint, so it falls short of a 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.