fvs_example_render_requestReturn a minimal scene render request agents can adapt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe operation. The description adds that it returns a minimal request, but this is mainly a restatement of purpose rather than disclosing additional behavioral traits like side-effects or response format. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 with no wasted words. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and intended use.
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 extremely simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists. The description, combined with annotations and output schema, provides a complete picture. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description mentions 'adapt' but adds no parameter-specific details since none exist. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4.
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 "Return" and names the resource "minimal scene render request", making it clear this tool provides a template. It distinguishes from siblings like fvs_submit_render or fvs_cancel_render by emphasizing it is an example that agents can adapt, not an actual operation.
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 when to use it: when an agent needs a starting point for creating a render request. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use this when you need a template rather than submitting a real render'.
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.
The two submit-like tools (fvs_submit_render vs fvs_create_paid_render_quote) and two status tools (fvs_get_render_status vs fvs_get_paid_render_status) could be confused, but their descriptions clearly distinguish by payment mode and required identifiers. The remaining tools have distinct purposes.
All tools share the 'fvs_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., cancel_render, get_render_status, submit_render). The one outlier is 'fvs_example_render_request', which is a noun phrase rather than verb-first, but the overall pattern remains predictable.
Eight tools is well-scoped for a video rendering service, covering submission, status checking, cancellation, download, example generation, and a UI opener without unnecessary bloat. This falls comfortably in the ideal 3-15 range.
The standard render lifecycle (submit, status, cancel, download) is fully covered, and the paid quote path is also supported. The main gap is the lack of a tool to list existing renders or projects, which would help agents manage multiple jobs, but this is a minor omission.