Audio/video URL -> .srt/.vtt subtitle file. Premium (via x402).
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": {
"source_url": "<source_url>"
},
"name": "subtitles"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | srt | |
| source_url | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only discloses the premium nature, but does not mention side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior on invalid URLs. This is insufficient for a tool that likely requires significant processing.
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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text.
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?
Given the two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide parameter usage hints and behavioral details. It omits these, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation of results.
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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. It does not mention the 'source_url' required input or the optional 'format' parameter with its default ('srt') and possible values. The description adds no meaning 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 clearly states the tool converts an audio/video URL to subtitle files in .srt or .vtt format. It specifies the output type and mentions it's premium, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'transcribe' that may also produce text from audio.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'transcribe' or 'extract'. It only mentions it's premium, implying users with premium access might use it, but lacks explicit context for selection.
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.