Get trending adult videos on tik-tok.porn by engagement for a time window (max 20).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a prior call | |
| window | No | Time window | |
| per_page | No |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the engagement-based ordering and the 20-result cap, but it does not describe pagination semantics, result direction, or any access constraints. 'Get' implies a read, but the behavioral profile is thin.
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?
One sentence with no filler; it front-loads the action and resource, states the ordering criterion, and places the limit at the end. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only list tool with an output schema and a well-described parameter schema, this is almost complete: it states purpose, ordering, and cap. It only lacks explicit alternative routing and deeper behavioral details, which are covered in other dimensions.
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 adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying the ordering key ('by engagement') and the 20-item cap, and it ties the window parameter to time windows. Page and cursor semantics remain in the schema, which already documents them, so the 75% coverage is adequately supplemented.
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 names the exact operation ('Get'), the resource ('trending adult videos on tik-tok.porn'), the ordering principle ('by engagement'), and a constraint ('time window', 'max 20'). This provides enough specificity to distinguish it from generic feed/search siblings.
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 alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are stated; there is no mention of get_feed or search_content. The usage context is only implied: use when trending videos are wanted.
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.
