user_videosList videos uploaded by a Vimeo user (user_id); supports pagination (page, per_page) and sorting; returns video metadata array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| per_page | No | ||
| direction | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | Array of user videos | |
| page | No | Current page | |
| total | No | Total videos by user | |
| 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: +[
+ {
+ "user_id": "user123"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "Array of user 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 by user",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that pagination (page, per_page) and sorting options are supported, and that the return is a 'video metadata array'. This provides useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though additional info like rate limits or default sort order could enhance clarity.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 16 words. Every element (list videos, user_id, pagination, sorting, return type) contributes directly to understanding the tool's function without 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?
The description covers the core behavior (list by user, pagination, sorting, return type). Since an output schema exists, detailing exact return fields is unnecessary. However, it could be more complete by mentioning default sort order, maximum pagination values, or potential error conditions. Overall, it meets the needs for a straightforward read operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It mentions 'user_id' explicitly and implies 'page', 'per_page', 'sort', and 'direction' through 'supports pagination and sorting'. However, it does not explain their formats, defaults, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.
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 specifies the verb 'list', the resource 'videos uploaded by a Vimeo user', and includes the key identifier 'user_id'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'video' (singular) and 'videos_search' (search across users) by focusing on a specific user's uploads.
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 context (list videos for a specific user) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like 'videos_search' or 'channel_videos'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
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.