Track a video by URL. Supports TikTok, Instagram, YouTube. Free.
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": {
"url": "<url>"
},
"name": "track_video"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full video URL (https) |
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 does not disclose whether tracking is a mutation, whether it requires authentication, what happens on duplicate tracks, or the side effects. 'Supports TikTok, Instagram, YouTube' and 'Free' are helpful but do not explain behavioral outcomes.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Track a video by URL') and includes only essential additional details (platform support and cost). There is no redundant or filler 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose, platform compatibility, and cost. However, it omits what the tracking action entails, any prerequisites, and the response format, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to understand the full context.
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 schema describes the url parameter as 'Full video URL (https)' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying supported platforms (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube), which clarifies which URLs are valid beyond a generic HTTPS URL.
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 verb 'Track' and resource 'a video by URL', and lists supported platforms (TikTok, Instagram, YouTube). This distinguishes it from siblings like bulk_track_videos, untrack_video, and track_account, which have different scopes.
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 tracking a single video from supported platforms, and 'Free' indicates no credit cost. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like bulk_track_videos for multiple URLs, nor does it state exclusions for unsupported platforms.
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.