Get a sample of the newest public adult videos on tik-tok.porn (max 20).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a prior call | |
| per_page | No | Items per page (max 20) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| videos | No | ||
| has_more | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that this returns only a sample and is capped at 20 items, which is useful. It does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or content-safety caveats, but for a read-only feed these are relatively minor gaps.
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 sentence with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the item cap is stated parenthetically. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant elaboration.
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 output schema and input schema cover return values and parameter semantics, while the description clarifies the feed's scope (newest, public, adult, sample, max 20). The main missing element is an explicit note on how page and cursor relate, but the opaque-cursor description in the schema mitigates that concern.
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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the per_page maximum ('max 20') and adds no new meaning about page or cursor semantics that is not already in 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('newest public adult videos') on a particular site, making the function clear. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_trending by emphasizing 'newest' versus trending, but does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 guidance is given about when to use get_feed versus alternatives like get_trending or search_content. There are no exclusions, alternative routing hints, or contextual conditions beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.
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.
