channel_videosList videos in a Vimeo channel by channel ID or slug; supports pagination and sorting; returns video metadata array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| direction | No | ||
| channel_id_or_slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of channel videos | |
| page | No | Current page | |
| total | No | Total videos in channel | |
| paging | No | Pagination links | |
| per_page | No | Items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "channel_id_or_slug": "staffpicks"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of channel videos",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "created_time": {
+ "description": "Creation timestamp",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "description": "Video description",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "duration": {
+ "description": "Duration in seconds",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Video title",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "pictures": {
+ "description": "Picture/thumbnail data",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "uri": {
+ "description": "Video URI",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "description": "Current page",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "paging": {
+ "description": "Pagination links",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "per_page": {
+ "description": "Items per page",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total videos in channel",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which cover safety. The description adds 'returns video metadata array', which is useful but not critical. No contradictions.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds key features. Every part earns its place 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't clarify pagination defaults or sorting semantics. For a tool with 5 parameters and zero schema descriptions, more detail would be helpful. However, the task is straightforward and the output schema mitigates some gaps.
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 has 5 parameters with 0% coverage in descriptions. The tool description only mentions 'supports pagination and sorting', giving no details on valid values for 'sort' (e.g., date, alphabetical) or 'direction' (asc/desc). An agent would need to infer or guess parameter behavior.
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 action (list), resource (videos in a Vimeo channel), identification method (channel ID or slug), and features (pagination, sorting, returns metadata array). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'channel' or 'video'.
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 for listing videos within a specific channel, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'videos_search' or state when not to use. However, the context is clear enough for an agent.
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family has six tools with blurred boundaries. The Vimeo tools are distinct, but the massive unrelated Pipeworx set creates ambiguity about which tool is appropriate for a given task.
Tool names mix conventions: Vimeo tools use bare nouns (video, channel, user), while Pipeworx tools use verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim) or noun_verb (ai_visibility_check). Some names like ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback do not follow a consistent verb-first pattern.
40 tools is far too many for a Vimeo server; only 9 tools are Vimeo-related, and the remaining 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx data toolkit. This inflates the surface area and makes the set unwieldy.
The Vimeo surface covers read operations (search, get, list) but lacks any write operations like upload, update, or delete videos. It also misses common Vimeo features like comments, likes, or portfolio management, so common tasks would hit dead ends.