captionCaption for a specific (episode, timestamp).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| show | No | ||
| episode | Yes | Episode key, e.g. "S05E15" (Simpsons). | |
| timestamp | Yes | Frame timestamp (ms) from search results. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "episode": "S05E15",
+ "timestamp": 45000
+ },
+ {
+ "episode": "S10E08",
+ "show": "simpsons",
+ "timestamp": 120500
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Caption data for a specific episode and timestamp",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no additional behavioral insights (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, or output format). Since annotations cover core behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 (7 words) but lacks structure and completeness. It conveys the core resource and scope but is almost too brief to be useful.
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 has a simple input schema, helpful annotations, and an output schema. The description provides the essential context (resource and key parameters) but does not elaborate on the tool's behavior beyond what is already in the schema and annotations. It is minimally complete.
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 description reiterates the parameter names from the schema without adding new semantics. The 'show' parameter lacks description in both the schema and description, resulting in incomplete parameter documentation. With 67% schema coverage, a score 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 identifies the resource ('Caption') and scope ('specific (episode, timestamp)') but lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'Get', 'Retrieve'). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'search_within' which could also retrieve captions.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings such as 'search' or 'search_within', nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints.
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.