TikTok MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns subtitles in a requested language and format, with a fallback to automatic speech recognition if no language is specified. However, it omits critical behavioral details such as error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), rate limits, authentication requirements, or output format specifics. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves in practice.

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 relatively concise but could be better structured. It repeats the purpose ('get the subtitle') and uses run-on sentences, making it slightly less efficient. For example, 'This is used for getting the subtitle, content or context for a TikTok video' is redundant. While it front-loads the main action, some sentences don't add substantial value, reducing overall clarity and efficiency.

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?

Given the complexity (a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, output format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or an output schema, more context on what the tool returns and how it behaves would improve completeness, leaving room for enhancement.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for both parameters (tiktok_url and language_code). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating that the language code is optional and referencing the sibling tool for available options. Since the schema already documents parameters thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the subtitle (content) for a TikTok video url.' It specifies the resource (TikTok video subtitle) and the action (get). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tiktok_get_post_details' or 'tiktok_available_subtitles', which might provide overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for retrieving subtitles from TikTok videos. It mentions an optional parameter for language code and references the sibling tool 'AVAILABLE_SUBTITLES' for language options, offering some guidance. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with alternatives like 'tiktok_get_post_details', which might also provide subtitle data, so it's not fully comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.