Channel Shorts
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | Sort by newest or popular | |
| handle | No | Can pass channelId or handle | |
| channelId | No | Can pass channelId or handle | |
| continuationToken | No | Continuation token to get more videos. Get 'continuationToken' from previous response. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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, but it discloses nothing: no mention of pagination via continuationToken, sort behavior, data returned, or any side effects. It is completely opaque about the tool's runtime behavior.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single noun phrase does not provide enough substance to be considered well-structured or valuable.
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 tool is moderately complex (4 params including continuationToken for pagination and sort), yet the description provides no context about return values, pagination, or how to use the tool effectively. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate.
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 input schema covers 100% of the four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient for parameter understanding.
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 'Channel Shorts' is a noun phrase with no verb or action, making it a tautology of the tool name. It does not state that the tool retrieves or lists short-form videos from a channel, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like scrapecreators_channel_videos or scrapecreators_trending_shorts.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or how it differs from other scrapecreators_* tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.