Read-only discovery and job planning for Evercraft social-video production and distribution.
Scored across 2 tools
Each tool serves a distinct role: one introspects capabilities and constraints, the other produces a non-executing creative plan. There is no overlap because 'plan_clip_job' explicitly avoids execution, while 'get_clip_capabilities' is purely informational.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with snake_case: 'get_clip_capabilities' and 'plan_clip_job'. The verbs 'get' and 'plan' clearly indicate their read/intent roles, and the noun prefix 'clip' reinforces the shared domain.
At two tools, the server is below the typical 3-15 range and feels thin for a service named 'Evercraft Clip.' However, the two tools cover the server's explicitly non-executing capability/planning scope without redundancy.
For the server's stated planning-only purpose, the surface covers capability discovery and job planning well. Persistent plan retrieval, updates, and any execution path are absent, but those are explicitly called out as out-of-scope rather than accidental omissions.
Read the current code-backed Evercraft Clip capability boundary, rendering limits, platform lanes, commercial truth, and authority constraints. Use when deciding whether Clip fits a social-video production or governed distribution problem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by clarifying that the information is 'code-backed' and 'current,' and by listing the categories of constraints it exposes. This helps an agent understand the nature and freshness of the data without contradicting 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?
Two sentences carry meaningful content with no filler. The actionable verb and resource scope are front-loaded, followed by a usage cue. Every phrase earns its place.
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 parameterless read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is read, the use case, and the data categories. It does not describe the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool only reports capabilities, this omission is minor.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Read' and identifies a precise resource: the Evercraft Clip capability boundary. It enumerates distinct facets (rendering limits, platform lanes, commercial truth, authority constraints), making the tool's scope unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling plan_clip_job.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when deciding whether Clip fits a social-video production or governed distribution problem.' This gives clear decision-oriented context, though it does not explicitly name plan_clip_job as an alternative or describe when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Non-executing Creative Director planner for authorized source media. Checks the current 35 MiB bounded customer pipeline, selects a creative style/caption treatment, exposes Facebook/LinkedIn/Instagram copy planning, and recommends ForensiScope upstream for oversized, long, deduplicated, or full-timeline media. It does not upload media, create an order, charge a user, transfer private media, or publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | ||
| caption_mode | No | burned_in | |
| complex_media | No | ||
| creative_style | No | clean | |
| target_platforms | No | ||
| needs_deduplication | No | ||
| needs_full_timeline | No | ||
| source_file_size_bytes | No | ||
| source_duration_seconds | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces and extends these by adding the 35 MiB bounded pipeline check and the explicit non-execution list, adding genuine context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core identity ('Non-executing planner') and packs scope, constraints, and exclusions efficiently. It is slightly long for a planner, but every clause earns its place.
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?
Covers the planning role, non-execution, pipeline bound, and upstream routing well for a 9-parameter tool. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it could better describe the shape of the returned plan; it gestures at outputs ('exposes copy planning', 'recommends upstream') but not concretely.
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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps several parameters indirectly — creative_style/caption_mode (style/caption treatment), target_platforms (Facebook/LinkedIn/Instagram), and the media flags (source_file_size_bytes, source_duration_seconds, needs_deduplication, needs_full_timeline) via upstream routing. But goal and complex_media are never addressed, leaving 2 of 9 parameters unexplained.
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?
States a specific role ('Non-executing Creative Director planner'), a resource scope ('authorized source media'), and a precise list of behaviors (checks pipeline, selects style/caption, exposes copy planning, recommends upstream). The explicit negative list — does not upload, create an order, charge, transfer, or publish — cleanly distinguishes it from executing tools.
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?
Provides actionable routing guidance (recommends ForensiScope upstream for oversized, long, deduplicated, or full-timeline media) and states clear non-execution constraints. However, it never names the sibling get_clip_capabilities or explains when to prefer one over the other, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
plan_clip_job5 fields changedInput schema / properties / caption_modeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "burned_in",
+ "enum": [
+ "burned_in",
+ "hook_only",
+ "none"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / complex_mediaAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / creative_styleAdded value: +{
+ "default": "clean",
+ "enum": [
+ "clean",
+ "bold",
+ "documentary",
+ "property"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / needs_deduplicationAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / needs_full_timelineAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}get_clip_capabilitiesplan_clip_jobEvercraft long-video/audio analysis with transcription, timelines and duplicate-segment review.
Browse published podcasts, video shows, and screenplays. Read-only public discovery.
Read-only public LoveTheNorth video discovery; no writes, private data, or model-training access.
Read-only AI project discovery, verification, comparison, shortlisting, and stack planning.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.