The full narration script of one of the user's finished videos, scene by scene, for a transcript, captions file, description or blog post. Reads only, costs nothing. Scene pictures can be downloaded from the links list_video_scenes gives, or all at once with Download scene images on the video's page on digitalmaker.ai.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| video_id | No | Omit for the most recent finished video. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does the key part: "Reads only, costs nothing" discloses both the side-effect profile and cost, which is the main risk an agent needs to know. It omits what happens for unfinished or missing videos and gives no sense of transcript size or truncation.
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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second sentence spends nearly half the text on scene-image downloading, which is adjacent routing information rather than what this tool produces. Tightening that to a clause would preserve the routing value without diluting focus.
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?
Return shape is described (full script, scene by scene) despite there being no output schema, and cost/safety are covered. For a zero-required-parameter read tool the gaps (unfinished-video behavior, empty transcript case) are small.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents "Omit for the most recent finished video," so the baseline applies. The description reinforces the "finished videos" constraint but adds no format or validity detail beyond the schema.
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 identifies the exact resource returned ("the full narration script ... scene by scene") and scopes it to one of the user's finished videos, which separates it from siblings like list_video_scenes or check_video. The verb is implicit ("The full narration script of...") rather than stated as "returns", but the outcome is unambiguous.
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?
It names concrete downstream uses (transcript, captions file, description, blog post) and routes the image-related need to list_video_scenes or the video page download. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. it never says what to call when the video is unfinished or when only scene metadata is needed.
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.